Sitting of 5 March 1946

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH)
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—
Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Great Western Railway.
Report referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) CORPORATION BILL
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Farmhouse, Bridgnorth (Inspection)
    Mr. Wardasked the Minister of Works why two officials of his Department were sent 30 miles by motor car from Birmingham to inspect a farmhouse near Bridgnorth on 21st February; and what was the result of these investigations.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlin-son): Information was received by the Ministry from a private source that extensive building work had been carried out at a dwelling-house near Bridgnorth, and, in accordance with the usual practice, a building inspector was instructed to make inquiries. He did not make a special journey solely for this purpose but carried out other business en route. The officer with him was a newly appointed
    154
    building inspector under training. The result of the investigation was not such as to suggest any need for further action
    Mr. Ward: Is the Minister aware that the whole of this abortive effort was based on an article in "Harper's Bazaar ' and does he not agree that it would be wiser to check his facts more carefully before embarking on a wild goose chase of this sort?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I do not know any better method of checking up than that of sending someone to see.

    Requisitioned Premises
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Works how many hotels and flats will be under requisition by Government Departments in the London area on 1st March, 1946, and how many will be released by 8th June, 1946.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The number of hotels and flats in London held under requisition on the 1st March by Government Departments, except as afterwards stated, was 2,847, and it is expected that 689 of these will be released by the 8th June. Figures are not available of premises requisitioned by the Ministry of Health, which premises are for the most part held for accommodating the homeless, nor of premises held by the Home Office for civil defence purposes. Very few, if any, hotels and flats are held by the Home Office.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the Minister aware that some of these flats are empty and could he not, in that case, derequisition them at once?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am not aware that any of these flats are empty, but I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Works how many hotels, flats, and houses will be occupied by Government Departments in Great Britain, excluding London, on 1st March, 1946, and how many will be released by 8th June, 1946.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The number of hotels, flats and houses in Great Britain excluding London held under requisition on the 1st March by Government Departments, except as afterwards stated, was 11,503, of which 5,511 will, it is expected, be released by 8th June. Figures are not available of premises requisitioned by the

    155
    Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland, which are for the most part held for accommodating the homeless, nor of premises requisitioned by the Home Office for civil defence purposes. The latter is unable to furnish particulars without an expenditure of time and trouble on the part of local authorities, which could not be justified.

    Temporary Bungalows, Twickenham
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that, although plans for temporary bungalows were submitted by the borough of Twickenham on 22nd August and his officers subsequently visited the site twice to inspect the progress of' the foundations and 50 times to check the work of prisoners of war, his Department did not discover until28th January that they had never received or had mislaid the plans, with the result that they did not invite tenders for erection until February; and if he will arrange for co-operation between his clerks and his outside officers so that a waste of five months may be avoided in future, or leave local authorities to make their own arrangements for erecting bungalows.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The necessary plans for the temporary houses for the Hanworth Road site, Hounslow Heath, were first submitted to my Department on 31st January, 1946. The borough of Twickenham started slab foundations for the houses in November using prisoner of war labour, and in January when this work had reached the stage for arranging a contract for the erection of the houses with civilian labour the Borough Council were reminded that plans had not been submitted. The fact that the plans were not received until 31st January has not delayed progress with work on the site since those which it is alleged were submitted in August would not be applicable to the type of house which is now to be erected on the site.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister reply to the latter part of the Question?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. I will look into that. There is an arrangement whereby local authorities can do the work.
    Mr. Keeling: What about the last 10 words? Cannot local authorities be allowed to make their own arrangements?
    Mr. Tomlinson: As I stated, many local authorities are erecting their own bungalows by arrangement with the Ministry.
    Sir Waldon Smithers: Is this not an inevitable waste of time and money under State control?

    House of Commons (Members' Smoking Room)
    8. Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Works if he will arrange for the pantry in the Members' smoking room to be altered or moved so that those who have to work there can do so under better conditions.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will consult with the Kitchen Committee and the authorities of the House about possible improvements in this accommodation.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the heat and cramped space make conditions of work there almost unbearable?
    Mr. Gallacher: Would not the Minister arrange to have the Members'smoking room moved outside the precincts of Westminster?

  FUEL AND POWER

    Coal Supplies, Manchester
    10. Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the Man-cheater area is short of coal; and why collieries in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Staffordshire are being directed to send the coal to the South and for export when the Manchester district is short.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): There is a general shortage of coal supplies but I am satisfied that Manchester is receiving its fair share of the supplies available. The diversion of certain supplies to the South has been necessary in order to relieve the acute position in the Southern areas where the quantities available to consumers have been considerably less than in the North. With regard to the export of coal I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 12th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst).
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the fact that Manchester is very often wet and cold, can the Minister, say whether this state of affairs in Manchester is to be remedied?
    Mr. Shinwell: Manchester has a better allocation of supplies than the South.
    Major Peter Roberts: With regard to the second part of the reply, is the Minister aware that in Sheffield it is impossible to get even 8 cwt. of coal in the fuel period—certainly nothing like 10 cwt. — and what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the citizens of Sheffield are having their fair allocation, that means having none at all?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, the hon Member knows that that is quite inaccurate. He speaks of Sheffield generally, but if he knows consumers who are receiving nothing at all will he either refer them to the local fuel overseer or give me details of specific cases?

    Coal Quality
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give an estimate of the percentage of slate and other non combustible material, included in the figures of output of saleable coal being published by his Department, now being received by householders.
    Mr. Shinwell: I would refer to my reply to a similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert) on 26th February.
    Mr. Shepherd: May I ask the Minister whether since that reply there has been any increase or decrease in the amount of slate contained in the coal, and does he think that people should pay high prices for this non combustible material?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have no reason to believe that there is any increase in non combustible material, but it is very difficult to deal with this matter. Conditions vary and we cannot provide facilities for extensive cleaning, but I can inform the hon. Member that my regional directors are giving full attention to this matter.

    Electricity Generation (Coal)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take immediate steps to improve the quality of coal supplied to electricity generating stations, in view of the lowered efficiency and increased plant maintenance costs brought about by unsuitable coal.
    Mr. Shinwell: Some deterioration in quality is inevitable so long as low output necessitates the utilisation of all available grades of coal. In general, I am satisfied that there is an equitable spread of the qualities and quantities available over all classes of consumers. Any immediate improvement, therefore, in the quality of deliveries to electricity stations could only be effected by a real location of supplies, to the prejudice of other consumers. In the meantime, my regional production directors have been instructed to take all possible steps to improve the preparation of coal.
    Mr. Palmer: Is the Minister aware that repeated representations have been made to him and to his predecessor by the electricity undertakings on this matter and by individuals, and that there is a great loss to the industry because of it? It is probable that the shedding of the load by the Central Electricity Board on 21st January could have been avoided had this matter been attended to before.
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not think any relaxation of supplies was due to that at all. I have not received repeated representations. I know the views of the electricity people, they know my views, and they are very sensible in understanding the position.

    Fuel Oil (Furnaces)
    Captain Marsdenasked the Minister of Fuel and Power in view of the shortage of furnace coal throughout the country whether steps are being taken to provide petroleum fuel oil for coal in furnaces.
    Mr. Shinwell: The point referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is one to which consideration has been given, but in the immediate future there is little prospect of being able to increase materially the supplies of fuel oil in this country. The possibilities of securing larger supplies is being pursued and when the investigations have been completed I shall be prepared to make a statement.

    Industry (Coal Supplies)
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the quantity of coal allotted to the wool industry is 25 per cent. below its requirements and that the average stock held by the industry is not more

    159
    than one week's supply; and what steps he is taking to prevent the closing down of the mills.
    Mr. Shinwell: The quantity of coal allocated to the wool industry and to industry generally is based on consumption and stocks and is sufficient for requirements, but owing to the output position it has not been possible in recent weeks to deliver the allocations in full. Distribution of the supplies available is on a fair and equitable basis, and wherever possible special measures are being taken at the expense of fulfilling allocations generally to give extra supplies to firms to prevent them closing down.

  MOTOR TYRES
  Major Digbyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why insurance agents, who are dependent on their cars for their livelihood, receive only S coupons and are therefore not allowed to buy new tyres when their own have worn out and when no retreaded or part-worn tyres are available for many months.
  Mr. Shinwell: There is a very large number of "S" coupon holders. Their category is fixed after careful consideration of the type of business on which they are engaged, and I could not justify a procedure for changing from "S" to "E" category coupons because of difficulties in obtaining tyres. I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, that although the production of both new and retreaded car tyres is improving, there is a general shortage and delay may occur in meeting replacement demands. No serious delay should, however, occur in cases where the motorist is able to arrange for the retreading of his existing tyres.

  SILICOSIS (TIN MINING)
  Mr. Beechmanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is taking steps to assist research into protective measures against silicosis in tin mining.
  Mr. Shinwell: I have arranged to co-operate in an investigation recently started in Cornwall by the Medical Research Council. This investigation, so I am informed, will include X-ray examinations
  160
  of men employed in tin mining and tests to determine the preventive and curative effects of inhaling aluminium powder.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Prisoner-of-War Labour
    Captain Marplesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that production of coal last month in the French mines was, notwithstanding the worn equipment of French mines, above prewar level at 3,974,000 tons; and whether, as this result was largely due to the employment in the mines of 50,000 German prisoners of war, he has considered the possibility of taking similar steps to raise output in this country.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of the employment of German prisoners of war in French mines, but I prefer to rely on British miners to provide the coal required in this country.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman will not use foreign miners in the British mines is because he is afraid of offending the T.U.C.?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, is badly informed.
    Captain Marples: Is not the Minister aware that these German prisoners could be employed in addition to, and not in substitution of, our own miners? Does he not consider it would be a practical step towards solving the present low production of coal?
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir, I do not believe it would solve any problem at all; it might create new ones.

    Antiseptics
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that under Section 85 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, 2 per cent. alcoholic solution of iodine, or other antiseptics approved by the Board of Trade must be available for first aid underground; and, as other and more modern antiseptics than iodine are available on the surface, what modern and more efficacious antiseptics have the Board of Trade approved for use underground.
    Mr. Shinwell: No alternative antiseptic to iodine has yet been approved for use underground. Practical trials are, however, being made underground to determine the effectiveness and general suitability under those conditions of other forms of antiseptic, and the position will be reviewed when the results of the trials are known.

    National Coal Board
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has decided on the persons to be appointed to form the National Coal Board; and what appointments, if any, have already been made.
    Mr. Shinwell: I hope to be in a position to make an announcement at an early date.
    Major P. Roberts: Has any approach been made to Lord Hindley? There have been rumours.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Demobilised Officers
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour how many temporary commissioned officers who have been de mobilised from the R.A.F. have been found employment; and how many have their names on the waiting list of the Appointments Board.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The statistics maintained by my Department of ex-Service personnel do not distinguish between the Services and I regret that the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member is not available.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that a number of these officers are going round unemployed? Is he further aware that some of the men in his Department who are trying to get these officers jobs have no experience, and will he try to improve the standard of the men who are trying to get the others jobs?
    Mr. Isaacs: It would have been better if that Question had been put on the Order Paper, but I can say that the men employed by the Department on this job have every experience and they are assisted in their labours by officers. From 1st May, 1945, to 11th February, 1946, 3,439 ex-Service personnel have been found appointments by the Department.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Yes, but would the right hon. Gentleman give the figures of the men who have not got jobs?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question I shall be glad to reply.

    Disabled Persons (Linotype Operators)
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Minister of Labour if all disabled ex-Servicemen training as linotype operators are guaranteed employment upon training being completed.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir; but my officers satisfy themselves, when a disabled person is accepted for a training course, that there are reasonable prospects of suitable employment on completion of training.
    Mr. Wallace: May I ask my right hon. Friend how far the shortage of newsprint has any effect on the statement which my right hon. Friend has just made?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think that is completely apart from this Question and has nothing to do with it.

    Ex-Servicemen
    Mr. Draysonasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Employment Exchanges are still refusing to give green introduction cards to ex-Servicemen during their period of demobilisation leave; and if he will issue instructions to remedy this.
    Mr. Isaacs: The existing instructions provide for the issue of green introduction cards in these cases If this has not been done in any particular case I should be glad if the hon. Member would let me have the details.
    Mr. Drayson: Is not the Minister aware that I have already communicated twice with his Department on this matter, and that a particular employment exchange still continues not to issue green cards to ex-Servicemen?
    Mr. Isaacs: Possibly I may have forgotten these particular letters amongst the large number of letters we are receiving, but I will examine the matter closely at once.

    Isle of Wight
    Captain Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Minister of Labour the number of

    163
    people registered as unemployed in the Isle of Wight on 1st March 1946; and what was the number on 1st August 1945.
    Mr. Isaacs: Statistics are not available in respect of 1st March, 1946, and 1st August, 1945.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Why not?
    Mr. Isaacs: Let me answer the Question first. The numbers of unemployed insured persons suitable for ordinary employment on the registers of employment exchanges in the Isle of Wight at 14th January, 1946, and 13th August, 1945, were 761 and 39 respectively.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these numbers have greatly increased since then, and that no effort has been made to find alternative employment for these people, who amount to something over 3,000? Why has the right hon. Gentleman not got up to date figures?
    Mr. Isaacs: The only difference in the figures I have given is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked for the first of the month and I have given the 13th and 14th of the months to which they are made up. As to the second part of this supplementary question, I do not accept that he has been correctly informed.
    Sir P. Macdonald: I asked for 1st March, 1946.
    Mr. Isaacs:I have given the figures up to the date on which they are recorded.

    Payment of Wages (Whitsun)
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Labour if he will make arrangements for employers of labour, who normally pay their employees on Fridays, to pay their employees on the Thursday preceding the Whitsun bank holiday, because of the shopping difficulties which will be caused by the declaration of 8th June as a bank holiday.
    Mr. Isaacs: This is a matter for arrangement within each industry according to circumstances, and is not one in respect of which I have any powers to intervene, but I have no doubt that employers will
    164
    take notice of representations made to them.

    Severely Disabled Persons (Factories. Scotland)
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour the suggested location of the special factories for the severely disabled to be established in Scotland.
    Mr. Isaacs: The Disabled Persons Employment Corporation proposes to open the first Scottish factories for severely disabled persons at Cowdenbeath, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow (two) and Mother-well. The completion of these factories will depend on the availability of suitable sites, labour and material.

    Domestic Service (Aliens)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for the admission of women from the Continent as domestic servants, in vacancies which cannot otherwise be filled, so that British men and women who have heavy full-time responsibilities may receive domestic help.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am considering, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, the possibility of arranging, subject to necessary safeguards, for women from certain foreign countries to be admitted to this country for domestic employment
    Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he is sympathetic with the scholar in the scullery and the councillor in the kitchen?
    Mr. Isaacs: As I have indicated previously, we have every sympathy with this problem and are examining it from a sympathetic point of view.
    Captain Marsden: Before making regulations, will the Minister consult with those who have had experience of domestic servants from the Continent before the war, because there are a great many snags in this, and it has to be considered carefully?
    Mr. Isaacs: I would not like to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman exactly with whom we will have consultations, but I most cordially agree with him that there are many snags in it.

  MILITARY SERVICE

    Students
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the conditions governing the entry of students to the universities for the year beginning October, 1946.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I hope to be able to do so fairly soon.

    Intake, January-June, 1946
    Captain Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an estimate of the total number of men to be called up for military service between 1st January and 31st December, 1946.
    Mr. Isaacs: The approved intake into the Armed Forces from 1st January to 30th June, 1946, is 151,500; this total includes volunteers and men called up under the National Service Acts. I am not yet in a position to announce the numbers to be recruited for the Forces in the second half of 1946.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Group Releases
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to give particulars of the group releases from the Forces after June to enable the target of reductions announced for December, 1946, to be reached.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not yet in a position to go beyond the programme of releases and discharges up to the end of June which I announced on 14th February.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement, as this is a matter of great concern to members of the Forces?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure. I think some reference was made to the matter by the Prime Minister yesterday, but we are anxious to make a statement as soon as possible and we realise that it is desirable to do so.

    Students
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Labour whether he will expedite the demobilisation of those serving in His Majesty's Forces for whose release the university authorities have asked, in order to enable them to continue and complete
    166
    their studies at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Isaacs: Releases under the Class B scheme for university students are being made as quickly as possible and approximately 3,250 students were reported as released in Class B up to 15th February, the latest date for which information is available.
    Dr. Little: Does the Minister recognize that many students are suffering very serious grievances owing to the slowness of their demobilisation? Is he further aware that one of my own constituents, a captain in the Army, was sent back to Italy, notwithstanding the fact that University College, London, asked for his release in order to enable him to complete his course for a Master of Science degree?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot possibly answer the personal case raised but, on the first part of this supplementary question, I would say that university students are having exactly the same fair treatment as every other class.

  SCOTLAND

    Electricity Supplies, Rural Areas
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that farmers in the Auchterless district of Aberdeenshire have made repeated applications to the Grampian Company for a supply of electricity in vain; and what steps he is taking to secure the electrification of rural districts in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I am aware that there is a demand from farmers in the Auchterless district for a supply of electricity and I am informed that the Grampian Electricity Supply Company are actively investigating the possibility of formulating a development scheme for the district. The question of the supply of electricity within the area of the Grampian Company is, of course, a matter for the Minister of Fuel and Power. As regards supplies in the North of Scotland district outside the areas of supply of other authorised undertakers, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have prepared a number of Schemes which will be put into operation as soon as circumstances permit. Schemes for other areas are under consideration.
    Mr. Boothby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for the shocking delay in electrifying rural Scotland is the absence of suitable timber to make poles? Will he bring pressure to bear on the Board of Trade to import more timber from Europe at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Westwood: I am aware that there are difficulties in the way of supply of materials, not only for the supply of electricity but for many other things which we require at the present time.
    Mr. Willis: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Ministry of Supply as to making these poles of steel, because 1 understand there is a possibility of that being done?
    Mr. Westwood: That question would require to be put on the Order Paper.

    Housing
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the result of his consideration of the application from the Hamilton Town Council for a compulsory order to purchase 116 acres of land at Neilsland Road and Hill-house Road for the erection of 1,200 houses as a result of the failure of the district valuer in his negotiations with the owners of the land; and if he will state the value on which this land was assessed for local rating purposes.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): An order for the compulsory purchase of land at Laighstonehall and Hillhouse was confirmed, with modifications, on 27th December, 1945, and is now operative. The land extends to 210 acres. As it consists of various parcels forming in most cases parts of farms I regret that I am unable to state the rateable value.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend state the total purchase price involved in this matter?
    Mr. Buchanan: I could not do so without notice. I made every effort to get the answer here, but the town clerk is unable to give us it because farming occupies a large portion of the land.
    Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman state why this cannot be done, since these people are bound to pay certain rateable values for the land?
    Mr. Buchanan: I am informed that because of this farming interest, that is not so easy. I am in difficulty as to what the hon. Member wants. He mentions 116 acres and our information is 210 acres. If it is possible, I will get him the information.
    44. Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Hawick Town Council, requiring land for housing, has been asked to pay a price equivalent to £625 per acre for ground at Sillerbithall owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland; that negotiations have failed, and that the district valuer has advised that the only course was to proceed by statutory notice; what steps are being taken to secure entry under statutory powers; and what is the area and the present rateable value of the land in question.
    Mr. Buchanan: The town council were given statutory powers to enter upon the land referred to on 11th May, 1945. The site, which comprises about 25½ acres, is part of an estate of about 38 acres, the rateable value of which is £107. The district valuer expects to bring negotiations for purchase to a satisfactory conclusion at an early date.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend whether that is not a most extravagant purchase? Having regard to the rateable value he has stated, the purchase price is frightfully exorbitant.
    Mr. Buchanan: We have not entered into any purchase price yet. The matter is being negotiated with the district valuer. We hope to have another price fixed, but until that is fixed, we cannot venture any opinions.
    Mr. McGovern: Has the hon. Gentleman any suspicions that these lands have been sold because of the fact that the Government are likely to take them over, and is he satisfied that they have been genuine sales?
    Mr. Buchanan: We are going through the normal procedure and the local authority is invoking the law. The district valuer is going into the matter, and it is his price which will eventually be paid.
    Mr. McAllisterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the town council

    169
    of the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen was consulted before he reached a decision with regard to Glasgow's housing development at the Castlemilk estate and, if not, why not; and if he will state the area of the green belt forming part of that estate which will, having regard to his recent decision, now divide the city of Glasgow from the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen.
    Mr. Westwood:The town council of Rutherglen were not consulted about the development of the land at Castlemilk for housing purposes, as they do not object to its use for those purposes. The only point at issue is the extent to which open space should be provided, and I shall consider this matter when the lay-out plans of the Glasgow and Rutherglen schemes are submitted to me.
    Mr. McAllister: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think that it is a scandalous and irresponsible way of treating a matter of this kind that the ancient and Royal Burgh of Rutherglen should have its green belt invaded and tampered with without any prior consultation? Is he not aware that the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen wrote to him in December last year regarding this matter, and was instructed to get in touch with the Clyde Valley Regional Planning Committee, that they did so —[Hon. Members: "Speech"] It is not a speech; it is a question. Is he not aware that the Clyde Valley Regional Planning Committee and the Glasgow Housing Committee reached an agreement, which was upset by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member has said was more in the form of a speech than a question.
    Mr. Westwood: May I suggest. Mr. Speaker, that I can reply short and snappy? Nothing that I do as Secretary of State for Scotland is either scandalous or irresponsible
    Mr. McKinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman request the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen to return to Glasgow that portion of Castlemilk which he had taken from it?
    Mr. McAllisterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has expressed an official view as to the maximum density which should be permitted in re-housing in towns and in the country.
    Mr. Westwood: No, Sir. The Department of Health for Scotland is investigating this highly technical subject, but their inquiries are not yet complete.
    Mr. McAllisterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number, names and descriptions of the housing estates agreed with Glasgow Corporation against the recommendations of the Clyde Valley Regional Planning Advisory Committee; and if he will consult with the President of the Board of Trade to find out how many industrial firms were persuaded to desist from invading the green belt on or near these points.
    Mr. Westwood: I am circulating in the Official Report the details asked for in the first part of the Question.
    No industrial firms have submitted proposals to the Board of Trade for the development of land in the area tentatively zoned by the Clyde Valley Committee as a green belt and in the selection of sites for industrial estates the green belt area has been avoided.
    Following are particulars of the sites approved by the Secretary of State for housing development within the area proposed by the Clyde Valley Committee as a green belt.

    Name or Description of Site

    Acreage.

    (1)

    Site north of Royston Road

    60·42

    (2)

    Site south of Hogganfield Loch

    42·24

    (3)

    Site south of Gartloch Road

    25·86

    (4)

    Site north of Hallhill Road

    54·50

    (5)

    Site south of Monkland Canal

    233·53

    (6)

    Site at Thornliebank Road North

    53·50

    (7)

    Site at Arden

    99·00

    (8)

    Site at Carthamloch and Cardowan

    115·75

    684·80

    Islands (Annual Value)
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the aggregate annual rental for local taxation purposes of the three Scottish islands of Eriskay, South Uist and Benbecula; how much of the rental attaches to crofter holdings; and how much is in respect of fishing, shooting and other sporting purposes; if he is aware that these islands were recently sold by the trustees of Lady Cathcart to Mr. H. A. Andreae; and at what price they were sold.
    Mr. West wood: According to the valuation roll for 1945–46 the gross annual value of the three islands is £9,815 of which £3,841 relates to agricultural subjects, most of which are crofter holdings, and £267 to shootings and fishings. Mr. Andreae's property in the islands dates from 1944, when he purchased the interest of the trustees of Lady Cathcart for £75,000. The subjects now owned by him have a gross annual value of £3,935 of which £3,525 relates to Agricultural subjects and £247 to shootings and fishings.

    Repatriated Internees (Medical Treatment)
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give an assurance that repatriated internees from the Far East, in need of medical, optical or dental treatment as a result of their captivity in Japanese camps, will be entitled to the same free treatment in or at E.M.S. hospitals as they would be if they had been repatriated to England or Wales; and if, where medical charges have been collected from internees or their relatives, these will be refunded.
    Mr. Westwood: Persons repatriated from the Far East are given the same service and conditions in Scotland as in England and Wales. There has never been any difference and if the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars I will gladly look into any case which makes him think otherwise. If I find that any medical charges have been collected they will certainly be refunded.
    Sir J. Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give great satisfaction but at the same time his Department did write and tell me the arrangements were not the same? However, all is well now.
    Mr. Westwood: My Department also wrote, and so did the Under-Secretary, asking the hon. and gallant Member to give examples of where there were differences in treatment, and the only case given was from Berwick-on-Tweed which, in accordance with Scottish geography, is is England and not in Scotland.

    Brick Supply
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of bricks for Scotland's housing programme
    Mr. Buchanan: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, I am doing everything possible to increase production through the reopening of brick works which were put on a care and maintenance basis during the war, and by the expansion of works already in operation For this purpose, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I had a meeting recently with representatives of brick makers in the west of Scotland at which the urgent need for increased production was fully discussed and emphasised.
    Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the brickworks which have been put on a care and maintenance basis still remain to be opened?
    Mr. Buchanan: There is a fair number yet. There have been 16 fully opened, and they are producing a fair quantity of bricks. A number of others are in process of opening, and there is a small minority on which nothing so far has been done. My hon. Friend can take it from me that, if I have any power at all, I will do my best to rectify the position at an early date.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Have all the brickworks round Coatbridge and Airdrie been brought into production?
    Mr. Buchanan: There are two angles of the matter about which I am anxious. One is that we want bricks for houses, and the other is that I do not think there is anything defensible in having unemployed men and unemployed brickworks when houses are required. My hon. Friend may take it from me that, from both angles of housing and employment, I will press this matter as much as I can.
    Mr. McGovern: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Glasgow Corporation are contemplating opening any brickworks, and whether there will be any new brickworks in and around the Glasgow area?
    Mr. Buchanan: So far as I know, no new brickworks in Glasgow are contemplated. My own view is that we want to utilise the present brickworks and make them 100 per cent. efficient and also reopen those which have been closed down. Meanwhile, it is a question of utilising the present brickworks and maintaining their production.

  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCASTS)
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister if he will consider making periodical broadcasts to the people of the country, on national problems, similar to those made by the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I should propose on suitable occasions to make broadcasts on national problems.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman give due weight to this statement, in view of the fact that in his broadcast he likened the condition of this country after over six months of Socialist Government to that in which it was at the time of Dunkirk?
  The Prime Minister: And so what?
  Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since his magnificent broadcast on Sunday last, if he will carry out the suggestions contained in the Question it would receive the warm support and approval of the mass of the people of this country?
  Mr. Walkden: Could I ask the right hop. Gentleman to arrange for fortnightly fireside talks?
  An Hon. Member: There is no coal in the fire.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: As it is impossible to separate entirely the personality of the Prime Minister from his personality as a political leader, will he see that the Opposition leaders have equal opportunities?
  The Prime Minister: The general rule is that where there is any matter of political controversy there should be opportunity given to the other side.

  VICTORY CELEBRATIONS (MARSHAL STALIN)
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he will favourably consider inviting Marshal Stalin to visit this country, with a view to taking part in the forthcoming Victory celebrations.
  The Prime Minister: Having regard to all the circumstances, His Majesty's Government have reluctantly come to the con-
  174
  clusion that it will not be practicable to invite distinguished personalities other than high ranking officers of the Allied Forces.

  ATOMIC ENERGY (RESEARCH)
  . Captain Blackburnasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that fundamental research on atomic energy in the universities has been delayed by lack of equipment such as radio and electronic stores and that such equipment is avail able in the form of surplus Government material; and whether he will ensure that all necessary equipment for such research is provided with the highest possible priority.
  The Prime Minister: The Government are kept in touch with the needs of universities for surplus stores by the University Grants Committee. In addition, the Advisory Committee on Atomic Energy has recently set up a sub-committee, on which the universities working in this field are represented, to review the programme of nuclear physics to be carried out in this country as a whole. No representations have been made to that subcommittee regarding any delay due to lack of surplus Government material. It is certainly the intention of the Government that the needs of such research should be accorded the highest priority.
  Mr. Clement Davies: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether all assistance in finance and material will be given to these scientists to enable them to get the best results from their research?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Henry Usborne: Can the Prime Minister tell us where it is intended to carry out any experiments!
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Sir W. Smithers: Transport House.
  Captain Blackburn: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that atomic research now proceeding in the U.S.A. is on a much greater scale than that contemplated in Britain; and whether he will in crease the block grant of £1,000,000 at present allocated for such research.
  The Prime Minister: The programme of atomic research in this country is not

  175
  limited by financial considerations, but by the numbers of trained scientists and the material resources available, especially in building and engineering equipment. Within these limits our programme of research is now being developed as rapidly as possible and expenditure on it for the year 1946–47 is estimated at approximately £2,800,000.

  GERMANY

    Dr. Lysiak
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that Dr. Lysiak, Chairman of the Ukrainian Representative Committee for the British Zone, was arrested in Hanover on 15th January; and whether he will give the reason for this arrest.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Dr. Lysiak is at present detained for interrogation because of suspected anti-Allied propaganda activities both during and after the war.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that this man was accepted by the British authorities as the de facto leader of this organisation, and that these dreadful persecutions have broken out again since the beginning of February? Forcible repatriation is still the order of the day in the British occupied zone, despite my hon. Friend's promise that it should not be.
    Mr. Hynd: I am not aware of what is suggested in the latter part of that supplementary question. In regard to the earlier part, I do not think it can be said that interrogation is necessarily an atrocity or an excess.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that this man is in a displaced persons camp, why is it necessary to arrest him? It is perfectly easy to interrogate a man in a camp without making it appear to his fellows that he is a criminal. If I cannot have an answer, may I ask another question?
    Mr. Hynd: It appears that the suggestion in that supplementary question is that no person who happens to be in a displaced persons camp should be arrested, irrespective of what charges may be made against him. I cannot accept that.
    Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that I am not allowed to pursue this Question, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, if I am lucky.

    Control Commission (Staff)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware of the shortage of British Military Government clerks and typists in the British zone of Germany, owing to unsatisfactory pay and conditions; and whether he is taking any steps to make these appointments more attractive.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The shortage to which my hon. Friend refers is due to the rapid release of Service men and women from the Control Commission. There is every hope that it will be overcome by the recruitment of civilians on the basis of remuneration now offered, i.e., the rates laid down for civil servants employed in London with the addition of foreign service allowance, Control Commission allowance, and an outfit allowance as well as free provision of uniform and board and lodging. The conditions of service are thus far from being unattractive.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his attention has been drawn to the delays, up to three weeks, in arranging for the medical examinations of Military Government civilian officers; and whether he will consider eliminating this delay by allowing an applicant to be examined by his own doctor.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir. The medical staff has recently been augmented and arrangements made to prevent such delays in future. Applicants have always been allowed to be examined by their own doctor if they so wished.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Fur Skins (Import)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what purpose were the £1,648,000 undressed fur skins imported into this country from September to December, 1945; and whether he will consider prohibiting such articles until the exchange, position is more satisfactory.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): To enable the international fur market in London to be reopened. I hope that, when this market is in full operation our receipts from the sales of furs and fur garments abroad will considerably exceed the cost of imported raw furs.
    Mr. Freeman: Is it not a fact that artificial furs are being produced in this country which have all the advantages of imported furs, without the revolting cruelties associated with the fur trade, and would my right hon. Friend consider prohibiting that trade?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I will not try to prohibit it at all. If there are any good artificial furs we will export them as well. We will export all we can get
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend's argument in favour of dollars supersede that in favour of kindness to animals?
    Mr. Dalton: The argument in favour of dollars is kindness to the British citizen.

    Foreign Exchange
    Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the value of foreign exchange obtained during 1945 on account of the visits of foreigners to this country; and whether any estimate can or will be made of the foreign exchange obtainable from this source during 1946.
    Mr. Dalton: Not for the last year, which was very abnormal. But we are trying to make an estimate for this year.

    Interest-Free Loans
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that £72,500,000 were lent to the Treasury free of interest for the prosecution of the war; if, in view of the great need for houses at the present time, he will consider making an appeal to the people of this country to lend their money free of interest for the purpose of financing housing; and if he will consider empowering local authorities to receive such loans.
    Mr. Dalton: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," and to the second and third parts "No, Sir." But I shall be most happy to receive on behalf of H.M. Government, any further interest free loans from any quarter.
    Mr. Gallacher: Does the Chancellor realise the very strong feeling there is among local authorities and people generally as to the necessity for interest-free loans for house building, as interest demands are one of the biggest obstacles to the Government's housing programme?
    Mr. Dalton: If there is anyone who feels like that, he can make me an interest-free loan.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not very strange that hon. Members opposite should be smiling at this Question, when at the same time they are very anxious to get money free of interest from America? Can we riot get money free of interest from our own folk—[Laughter.] They are just a lot of brass faces, that is all.

    Overseas Investments
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance of conserving our remaining overseas investments, he will make it clear to all foreign debtors of this country that he adheres to the principle of the sanctity of contracts; and what steps he is taking to protect these investments.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that British holders of foreign bonds include millions of small investors, he will make a statement on the steps His Majesty's Government proposes to protect their interests and to protect and increase these invisible exports.
    Mr. Dalton: All steps, which are appropriate to each particular case, will be taken to protect our overseas investments.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Chancellor aware that prior to the war this country received free food and raw materials to the extent of £200 million a year because of British owned investments abroad? Does he not therefore consider that is good reason why every possible measure should be taken to conserve the interests of British investors abroad?
    Mr. Dalton: There is another Question on that point.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Chancellor realise that one of his principal duties is to protect the British investor, not only in the investor's interest but in the national interest?
    Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Will the Chancellor. bear this in mind in relation to Japanese bonds?
    Mr. Dalton: There is another Question on the Order Paper on that point.

    Ex-Enemy Bonds (British Holders)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the recent heavy fall in ex-enemy bonds, which has reduced the value of British assets; whether he is aware that those who bought them at a time when the borrower was in alliance or friendly relation with this country have suffered loss; and whether he proposes to arrange for any compensation or payment to the holders.
    Mr. Dalton: I am aware of the facts referred to. I cannot hold out hope of any arrangement on the lines proposed, but I intend to discuss the issues involved with representatives of the interested parties.
    Mr. Keeling:Is the Chancellor aware that his attitude last week to the holders of these bonds is not only unfair to perfectly patriotic investors, but bad for British trade and harmful to the Government's financial reputation in America?
    Mr. Dalton: The Question I was asked last week related not to foreign bonds in general but to Japanese bonds. [An Hon. Member: "What is the difference? "] The difference is that those who put money into Japanese bonds backed the wrong horse, and it was very lucky for this country that it was the wrong horse.
    Major Bruce: Is the Chancellor aware that there are thousands of other people in this country who have suffered loss during the war, and whose claims are rather better, shall we say, than those put before us in this Question?
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Do the Chancellor's strictures apply also to investors who, at the request of the Socialist Government at the time, put their money into the Dawes and Young loans for the aid of Germany?
    Mr. Dalton: No Government, either Labour or Tory, ever advised shareholders to buy Japanese bonds. It was on Japanese bonds that the Question was
    180
    asked and it is on Japanese bonds I have given my answer. I have further added that I intend to see representatives of the interested parties before long, and it will not advance the interests of clients of hon. Gentlemen opposite if I — [Interruption.]
    Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order. I submit respectfully that the last answer of the Chancellor contains an imputation. The general meaning of the word '' client "means there is a financial basis between the two parties, and I suggest he is imputing that hon. Members on this side of the House who asked these questions are— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: I must confess that it struck me when the Chancellor said that, but I have no doubt he will withdraw any imputation.
    Mr. Dalton: It was not in my mind —
    Mr. Kirkwood: Do not apologise.
    Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw any imputation, I think the hon. Gentleman should allow him to do so.
    Mr. Dalton: It was not in my mind to impute any such financial connection as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. If it should be thought that the word "client" imparts that connection, I withdraw it. I used the term "client" to indicate the persons who have moved hon. Gentlemen opposite to put Questions on the Paper
    Mr. Stanley: Surely, it is an established practice in this House that we do not impute that Questions put down by hon. Members, or speeches made, are due to the influence of people outside?
    Sir F. Sanderson:On a point of Order. In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, am I not in Order in pointing out to the Chancellor that I asked the advice of no one when I put my Question down? I put my Question down through my own initiative and because I realised it was in the interests of the British investing public and the country.
    Mr. Keeling: I give notice that I shall raise on the Adjournment the Chancellor's imputations and also the general question of these bonds.

  POLISH AFFAIRS (TREASURY COMMISSION)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of Poles employed by the Treasury Commission on Polish Affairs; and when the Interim Report of this Commission will be published.
  Mr. Dalton: Four hundred and nineteen. I do not intend to publish any report by the Interim Treasury Committee.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Technical and Professional Staffs (Recruitment)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that men from the Forces, including those who are over 30 years of age, will be eligible for permanent appointments on the technical and professional staffs required by the Treasury.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, for permanent appointments in the professional and technical branches throughout the Civil Service. The upper age limit will be 30 for scientists and will range between 35 and 45 in other cases, varying according to the qualifications and experience required.
    Mr. Lipson: Does that answer mean that a man who has served in the Forces will be in no way handicapped in respect of his eligibility for these appointments?
    Mr. Dalton: Certainly not, ages being equal.

    Estate Duty Office
    Mr. Carsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to give an approximate date when the Estate Duty Office branch of the Civil Service now at Llandudno will return to London.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I am afraid not.
    Mr. Carson: Is the Chancellor aware that these men are in a much worse position than the serving soldier, in that they have no idea when their service away from home is to end? Could he not try in the future to put some time limit to the period before they will come back?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I really cannot accept the view that they are in a worse
    182
    position than the serving soldier. That is a grotesque extravagance, as any serving soldier would know. There is great pressure on space in London, and a great deal of work, including that of the Estate Duty Office, can be performed perfectly well in the country. There is no need for these people to come to London so far as the nature of their work is concerned. On the long view we must try to disperse a lot of our Civil Service activities away from the Metropolis in the Provinces.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Chancellor quite sure that a lot of unnecessary work is not caused to solicitors and agents by this office being in the country? If he reconsiders the matter I think he will find he is wrong.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is it not a fact that these civil servants have become so fond of Wales that they do not want to leave it?

    Controller of Stamps
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the delays which are taking place in the adjudication and stamping of documents; and if he can arrange for an early increase in the staff of the Controller of Stamps branch of the Inland Revenue.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Yes, Sir. Every effort is being made to remedy the existing staff shortage.

    Civil Service (Figures)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number employed by the Government as civil servants at the end of the financial years of 1938, 1942 and 1945.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Whole-time non-industrial civil servants on these dates numbered 374,301, 686,342 and 647,592 respectively.
    Mr. De la B ère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last figure he gave is almost equal to the number engaged in agriculture? Is it not more important to have men doing a job producing goods we can eat than doing a great deal of work which does not produce anything useful?
    Mr. Stokes: Might I ask my hon. Friend what he means by a non-industrial civil servant and what those figures would become if they were included?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my hon. Friend wants the industrial as well as the non-industrial, I will be very happy to get them for him.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

    Premises
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Assistant Postmaster-General, as representing the Ministry of Information, if he will give a list of all premises held by the B.B.C., indicating whether requisitioned or not; the total annual cost; the number of persons living there; and the capital cost for conversion during the war years in each case.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): The B.B.C. at present hold some 217 premises at home and overseas of which 13 are requisitioned and 5 are on requisitioned land. The total annual cost of these premises is £484,000. This figure does not include the rent and rates of requisitioned premises which are of the order of £100,000. The number of persons living on these premises is 760. Details of conversion costs during the war years are not at present available.
    Sir G. Foxasked the Assistant Postmaster-General, as representing the Ministry of Information, the maximum number of country houses held by the B.B.C. during the war years, the number held at present; and how much of the recent 10s. increase in the cost of wireless licences is due to the cost of these places.
    Mr. Burke: The total number of country houses held by the B.B.C. during the war years was 21. The number held at present is 13. The cost of these premises was not a factor in the decision to increase the licence fee.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that a number of these country houses are in my constituency, and that their upkeep is very expensive? How much of this 10s. increase in the wireless licence is represented by that cost?
    Mr. Burke: I have just said the increase is not due to the cost of these
    184
    places but is for contemplated improvements. I am aware that the hon. and gallant Member asked questions about the premises in his district before.

    Programme Staff
    Sir G. Foxasked the Assistant Postmaster-General as representing the Ministry of Information, if he will state the number of persons permanently employed by the B.B.C. on programme production; and the number of persons employed as domestic personnel, in 1939 and at the present time, respectively.
    Mr. Burke: At 26th January, 1946, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 3,214 persons employed in the programme services and 1,322 as house staff. The corresponding figures for April, 1939, were 849 and approximately 364, respectively.

    Reception (Sheffield)
    Major P. Robertsasked the Assist ant Postmaster-General as representing the Ministry of Information, what steps he proposes to take to improve the B.B.C.'s programme reception in Sheffield.
    Mr. Burke: I have no reason to believe that the quality of reception of the Northern Home Service and of the Light Programme in Sheffield is not generally satisfactory. The B.B.C. have had a few reports of poor reception but these have been found to be due to the faulty design of some types of receiver and the listeners who complained have been advised by the B.B.C. of a simple means of overcoming the trouble.
    Major Roberts: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General take note that there is widespread dissatisfaction, and will he look into it further because of this dissatisfaction in Sheffield over this matter, especially with regard to the Light Programme?
    Mr. Burke: If the hon. and gallant Member will give us any specific complaints we shall be very glad to attend to them.
    Mr. G. Jeger: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that these complaints are current also in Hampshire, particularly in Southampton, in spite of the suggested improvements having been put into effect, without any beneficial result?
    Mr. Burke: I am dealing now with Sheffield.

    Controversial Matters
    Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General, as representing the Ministry of Information, whether he will state the principles which guide the policy of broadcasting, particularly in regard to controversial matters.
    Mr. Burke: The B.B.C.'s policy is governed by the terms of its Charter and Licence. In its treatment of controversial matters it seeks to maintain an impartial and representative balance between various points of view.
    Mr. Freeman: Might I ask that when the new Charter is granted to the B.B.C. an opportunity will be provided to discuss questions of a controversial nature relating to religion and medicine, which are prevented at the present time?
    Mr. Burke: I cannot answer what may happen, but at the present time the B.B.C. does seek to keep—and I think generally does—an impartial and representative balance in its broadcasts.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the Minister is aware that very bad discrimination was exercised against minority views for a long time during the war, and will he make quite sure now that they will have a full opportunity?
    Mr. Burke: No, Sir, it would be impossible to reconcile the claims of "the two and seventy jarring sects."

  EGYPT (DISTURBANCES, ALEXANDRIA)
  Mr. Eden (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the recent riots in Alexandria?
  The Minister of State (Mr. Noel-Baker): I regret that I am not yet able substantially to add to the reports of the disturbances in Alexandria which have appeared in the Press. Unfortunately it has been confirmed that attacks were made yesterday on British naval and military establishments and that in the course of these attacks two British soldiers were killed and one was wounded.
  I am also informed that the British troops involved were beleaguered and
  186
  attacked and that it was only after this had happened that they were obliged to open fire. I am now awaiting further reports from His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo and until I have received them I think I should add nothing further except to express my grave concern at these incidents and my sympathy with the relatives of the British soldiers who have lost their lives.
  Mr. Eden: While not desiring to press the right hon. Gentleman further today, may I ask him whether he will give the House further information as soon as he receives it?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, certainly. .

  MIGRATION SCHEME, AUSTRALIA
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Parker): I desire to make the following statement to the House.
  Arrangements have recently been agreed with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia for the assisted migration of suitable British subjects who desire to settle in Australia, and whom the Australian Government are willing to receive. These arrangements, which will operate only so long as favourable conditions for settlement in Australia are known to exist, deal respectively with: —

  (a) the grant of free passages to suitable British men and women who were resident in the British Isles or were in the United Kingdom Forces overseas on the 1st September, 1938, and have served in a whole-time capacity in the Armed Forces or Merchant Navy of the United Kingdom during the period of the recent war, and their dependants;

  (b) a scheme under the authority of the Empire Settlement Acts of 1922 and 1937 for passage assistance to approved migrants and their dependants, who are normally resident in the United Kingdom and who do not come within the scope of the free passage scheme. Persons, of 19 years of age and over, will be required 10 contribute £10 and juveniles of 14 to 18 years of age, £5 towards the cost of a passage, the remainder of the cost, including free passages for

  187
  children under 14 years of age being borne equally by the United Kingdom and Australian Governments.

  The announcement of these schemes, which will come into operation on a date to be agreed upon by the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments, does not imply that ships will now be freely available to take migrants to Australia. The existing shortage of passenger accommodation is likely to continue for some considerable time.
  Applicants under these arrangements will have to be accepted by the Commonwealth authorities as medically fit and otherwise suitable for settlement in Australia. Men and women who were released from the Forces for work of civilian importance, including those released in Class B may require the permission of the Ministry of Labour and National Service to leave their employment in the United Kingdom before they can be granted free passages under Scheme "a." It will be open to the Ministry of Labour and National Service to withhold approval to the grant of assisted passages under Scheme "b"in the case of men and women possessing certain qualifications, who are in short supply here, and urgently needed in the interests of the United Kingdom.
  The Commonwealth Government will provide free transport from the port of disembarkation to the settler's destination in Australia, and accommodation for a limited period if necessary. They will arrange for co-operation with the appropriate authorities in Australia for the reception, placement and aftercare in Australia of the settlers approved under these schemes, who will also be eligible for certain social service benefits as from the date of arrival in Australia.
  Settlers under these schemes will not normally obtain employment with individual employers until after their arrival in Australia but a settler will not receive a passage unless there is a reasonable assurance that he will obtain employment on arrival. The settlers will have at their disposal the facilities of the Commonwealth Employment Service but will not be eligible for the employment preference now granted for a period of seven years, to Australian ex-Servicemen, under the Commonwealth Act, No. 11, of 1945.
  188
  Until the date on which the schemes are opened, no applications can be received, but leaflets giving fuller particulars will be available at all local offices, including resettlement advice offices, and regional appointments offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service of Great Britain. This Department will be responsible for administering the free passage scheme in detail jointly with the Office of the High Commissioner for Australia, Australia House, Strand, W.C.2. The leaflets will also be available at local Offices of the Ministry of Labour of Northern Ireland and similar information will be circulated by the Service Departments for the information of men and women still in the Forces.
  The Dominions Office will remain responsible for all matters of policy relating to migration to the Dominions, including the negotiation of agreements with overseas Governments, and voluntary societies operating overseas.
  Mr, Solley: May I ask if this scheme is confined simply to British soldiers? Is it extended to Poles and others who have been promised citizenship of this country?
  Mr. Parker: It covers only British citizens at the moment.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: May I ask whether the information which the hon. Gentleman has just given can be issued in the form of a statement?
  Mr. Parker: It will be in HANSARD.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Shall we be able to have a number of copies of it?
  Mr. Parker: I will look into that point.
  Mr. McGovern: Is there any special reason why this statement should be made now in view of the fact that there is no intention of putting it into operation, as the hon. Gentleman says, for a considerable time? Is he aware that hon. Members will be inundated with requests from constituents who will not understand that the arrangements will not operate just yet?
  Mr. Parker: It is being announced now, in agreement with the Australian Government, because there are a great many. people being discharged from the Forces or war work who want to make decisions about their future. We thought it desirable to make the statement now so that

  189
  they could make their plans ahead. The statement makes it quite clear that there will not be the necessary shipping accommodation in the immediate future. It is very unlikely that, many people will go out before the end of the present year.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman what type of work it is intended that these settlers shall be offered when they get to the Dominion, and whether steps have been taken to see that they do not fall into the same trap as settlers fell into after the last war, of being offered virgin soil which they were unable to make a living out of?
  Mr. Parker: The Australian Government have given this matter careful consideration and are working out schemes as to the kind of jobs that will be available, and that information will be made known by the Australian Government to prospective settlers.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a similar statement regarding Canada, South Africa and New Zealand, because a great many people are hoping to get to those countries?
  Mr. Parker: At the present time the Australian Government are the only Dominion Government who are anxious to have a scheme of this sort.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: Will special facilities be given under this scheme to those in this country who have offers of employment in Australia and are only debarred from going there because they cannot afford the passage?
  Mr. Parker: They will be covered by this scheme, but it will depend upon the urgency of their job as to whether the Commonwealth Government are prepared to give them priority with regard to passage.

  PLANNING OF LONDON (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): With the permission of the House I will make a statement about the planning of London. The policy of His Majesty's Government on this
  190
  matter is in accord with the fourth and fifth conclusions, unanimously reached, of the Barlow Commission. The Plan for the County of London and the companion Plan for Greater London, which covers the areas surrounding the county, between them contain a number of co-ordinated proposals aimed at achieving these objects. The Plan for Greater London has been under close examination by a number of my colleagues and myself, and the following decisions have been reached:
  Firstly, the overall growth of London's population and industry should be restrained. This is one aspect of the general policy for achieving throughout the country a better balance of the distribution of industry, and in particular for assisting the industrial recovery of the Development Areas.
  Secondly, a planned programme of decentralisation to the outer areas of Greater London should replace the uncontrolled sprawl of the inter-warperiod. War damage in the congests inner areas and wartime evacuation have provided a unique opportunity for effecting this redistribution. The intention is to make provision for about a million persons and concurrently a related quota of industrial firms to be accommodated further out—mainly in a few new towns and in selected existing towns within 20 to 50 miles of London's centre. The planned developments will be given priority according to their urgency.
  Thirdly, it is proposed that the general lines of the decentralisation and resettlement should broadly conform to the proposals made by Sir Patrick Abercrombie for dividing the area surrounding the County of London into four Rings. From the County of London and the Inner Urban Ring round it, which form the congested areas most of the decentralisation should take place. The next Ring, the Suburban Ring, should be regarded in general as static. Surrounding this built up area a Green Belt Ring is to be carefully safeguarded, and this Ring, except in permitted cases, should act as a barrier to further suburban growth. The fourth or Outer Country Ring should serve as the main reception area for persons and industry

  191
  moving out from overcrowded London into compact settlements surrounded by open country.
  The implementation of these proposals rests in part upon the comprehensive legislation for land control which the Government will be introducing. Meantime it is my intention to afford guidance to the planning authorities in accordance with this statement. But while the Government endorse the main principles underlying the Greater London Plan, they do not at this stage adopt a number of the individual projects for development recommended by Sir Patrick Abercrombie, such as the location and number of the new towns and the proposals for highways. These matters are being further examined in all their bearings by the Government and also by the planning authorities both at the local level and through the Regional Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) which is coordinating local views. I hope shortly to be in a position, in association with my colleagues, to provide further guidance to these bodies.
  Captain Crowder: With regard to Middlesex, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he favours the building of satellite towns with industries attached close by to them, or towns used as dormitories with workers living outside and coming in to Middlesex?
  Mr. Silkin: Broadly speaking, the Government favour the first proposal—the creation of satellite towns where people can live and work.
  Major Vernon: Can the Minister tell us a little more about the inner ring—the County of London itself?
  Mr. Silkin: This is the congested part of London, and, generally speaking, there will be a movement outwards, towards less congested parts of London.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith:Will the Minister say whether he is satisfied that the Abercrombie Report took fully into account the problem of water supplies for satellite towns in the reception areas and, if not, whether he will give an undertaking that that problem will be investigated be fore any decisions are made?
  Mr. Silkin: I did say that the question of the location and numbers of the satellite towns is still being examined. One of the factors in that examination will be water supplies, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be taken into full consideration.
  Mr. Driberg: Arising out of the Minister's first Supplementary Answer, will he make it possible, as soon as the location of the new towns is agreed upon, for suitable industrial development to take place in good time before the new inhabitants are housed there?
  Mr. Silkin: Certainly, Sir. I think that is necessary for the success of the scheme. Conferences will take place with industrialists so that houses and industries can be provided side by side.
  Mr. Mitchison: Since the Abercrombie Report is limited in geographical scope by its terms of reference, will the Minister give further consideration to dispersal towns, such as Kettering, a little farther out than 50 miles, having good lines of communication?
  Mr. Silkin: That is a separate problem. One has to draw the line some where, otherwise the plan will become a plan for the whole country. Every town will be considered on its merits.
  Mr. Scollan:Is it not the case that the purpose of the scheme is to meet the congestion which exists in big cities, and would it, therefore, not be much better if the Government took into consideration the dispersal of industries which would create the necessary cure for the conglomeration which we have in the big cities?
  Mr. Silkin: I think the right course is to deal with industry and population side by side, and that is the present policy.

  UNITED NATIONS BILL [Lords]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
  ELECTIONS
  Second Report from the Select Committee (with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices), brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Bill and on the Motions relating to Estimates exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEFENCE POLICY
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question[4th March]:
  " That this House approves the Statement relating to Defence (Cmd. 6743)." —[The Prime Minister.]
  Question again proposed.
  3.31 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. J. Lawson): During the Debate yesterday a number of questions affecting the Army were raised. In fact, there were times when I thought I was listening to an Army Estimates Debate. I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I tried to give some answer to those questions, but I think I shall have to limit myself today in case I should not have anything left to say when the Army Estimates do come before this House.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) made the point that the Government had delayed coming to a decision on the fixing of the limit of the period for young men entering the Services. I can assure him, and the House, that that is a matter which is receiving the attention of the Government and of the urgency of which the Government are well aware. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that when the period was fixed, consideration should be given to the question of the age at which young men should enter the Army, and whether their education and apprenticeships should receive consideration. I think I ought to make it clear that the overriding consideration in dealing with the intake, either now or when the period is fixed, is the most rapid release possible of those who have served this country. Young men have, in many cases, been away from this country for
  194
  many years, and in many cases their education and their apprenticeships have been interrupted. I think the men who are now in the Forces should be made aware that their case will receive first consideration, and that this House has for them a profound sympathy and gratitude for the services they have rendered. Of course, that is not to say that the Government are not deeply concerned about this matter of the interruption of education and of apprenticeships. I cannot pursue that subject today because I hope to deal with it at greater length in the Debate on the Army Estimates, but I thought the House would like to know that, as I say, the overriding consideration is the release of men from the Services and that the only way that can be done is by the intake of younger men. At the same time, we are not unmindful of our responsibilities in connection with that particular point of education and apprenticeships.
  Mr. Lipson: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that when the Army Estimates come to be discussed he will tell us what the length of service of these young men will be?
  Mr. Lawson: No. I thought I had made myself fairly clear. The matter with which I shall deal on the Army Estimates is the consideration of the education and the apprenticeships of the young men who are entering the Service.
  Several hon. Members raised the question of the rate of release in the various Services, and I am very well aware that there is a certain confusion of mind on this point. They pointed out, for instance, that men in the Navy with two years less service than men in the Army, are in the course of demobilisation, although they are of the same age. It would be foolish of me to attempt to deny that fact, but there are reasons for it, and I think when I give those reasons hon. Members will appreciate their force. The "age and service" release group structure of the three Services varies enormously, as hon. Members know. This can be seen from the fact that in group 26 the numbers to be released are, in the Army 265,000, in the Royal Navy 15,000, and in the Royal Air Force 52,000. I give those figures to show that we are dealing with three entirely separate Services whose duties are also quite separate.

  195
  In the early stages, the Army's commitments were reduced more quickly, and now it is the other way. round.
  It was suggested yesterday that in these circumstances there should be a transfer of men from one Service to another. We think that is not worth while in view of the fact that men coming from one Service would have to be retrained, and probably, by the time they were retrained, they would be due for demobilisation. It is, therefore, quite impossible to keep the rate of release in all the Services equal all the time. As a matter of fact, this was foreseen in the White Paper on re-allocation of manpower which, if I may say so, some hon. Members have probably not read. But even if they have, I think, in the light of the questions and some of the speeches I have heard, it might be worth while looking again at that particular Paper which was issued a year or two ago. It is stated that:
  " Owing to military considerations, release will necessarily proceed at different rates in the different Services."
  Therefore it was foreseen at the time of the White Paper that some of these difficulties, which are now emerging, would arise in view of the different structures of the various Services. The disparity could only be overcome by delaying the release in all Services to the pace of the slowest, and I do not think anyone would suggest that. I would point out that last week I answered a Question showing that by the end of June, 2,100,000 men will have been released from the Army. That represents 69 per cent. of the Army strength on V-Day and compares very favourably with releases from the other Services. What that means is that, as a matter of fact, the Army is slightly in advance of the other two Services on the total proportion of men who will be released by the end of June. I do not know whether that meets the points that have been put on that particular matter. I would not conceal for a moment that the rate of release is somewhat slower at the present time, but I think the details with regard to the percentage of the total force which I have just stated ought to be borne in mind, and made known to the men concerned.
  Mr. Keeling: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point may I put this question to him? Would it
  196
  not be possible for some of the men in the Navy, and some of the men in the Air Force who are being released faster than the men in the Army, to be employed on jobs which the Army are now doing, without any training?
  Mr. Lawson: I should not like to be absolutely specific upon that point. The hon. Member will see that the real need is to have retrained men to substitute the men who are released. Even if it were possible to take a certain number, they would be so few as to make the matter hardly worthwhile. With regard to the main question, the men would have to be retrained in order to release other men. There has been considerable confusion, too, on the question of the Python period. The hon. and gallant Member for West Wolverhampton (Lieutenant H. Hughes) stated the situation accurately last night. That was clearly seen from the speech made by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), in which he made a statement with regard to certain delays in connection with Python in India. Complaints are continually made to me, not only in the House but by letter and indeed by personal questions, about delays in connection with Python. I want to make it quite clear to the House that there has not been a single case for many months now in which a man has completed his Python tour, and has not left either India or S.E.A.C. well within the proper time, so that he has been back in this country at the right period.
  I think I ought to make this quite clear, in reference to some of the questions I have received. The Python period in India and S.E.A.C. is three years and four months. In an answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) on 26th February I explained how this period was reckoned. I said:
  " The period Is measured from the time the man leaves the United Kingdom to the time he leaves the overseas theatre."— [Official Report, 26th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 356.]
  April, 1946, is, therefore, the correct date for the departure of those who left, say, in 1942. Of course, it has happened that S.E.A.C. got ahead of this, and began sending men back with less than three years and four months. I think that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for South Cardiff.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I am very glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. My real point was that men in India were writing to say that there will be no sailings in March.
  Mr. Lawson: I gave an explicit answer to that last night. The fact is that India was left behind, and S.E.A.C. was brought into step again. No more Python sailings have been delayed beyond the due date. If any hon. Member knows of a case of a delay in Python resulting in a man coming home late after his Python tour, I should be very pleased to make a searching investigation of that particular case, and in so far as I can, I shall do justice upon the matter
  Mr. Driberg: It does seem to be a fact that, even if the men are on time in leaving, there is no Python sailing from India and S.E.A.C. during March. Are the boats being held back so that the men shall not leave before serving their three years and four months period? If they could get away a bit earlier, could not my right hon. Friend let them leave earlier?
  Mr. Lawson: All I am giving a guarantee on, is the fact that a man will leave in good time when he has completed his three years and four months. That is the period of the tour.
  Mr. Callaghan: When do we expect to get down to three years?
  Mr. Lawson:All I can say on that point is that experience has taught me not to make any promise for the implementation of which I have not already taken proper steps. I have had some experience on this matter. As hon. Members know, I met masses of men in India and in the Far East. Their Python period had been reduced from three years and eight months to three years and four months. When I got to India, I met literally thousands of men in large camps, men who had been there three years and eight months, and indeed a number beyond that when their period was actually three years and four months. I ask the House to imagine what sort of a job I had in facing those men. They repeatedly said to me: "Tell us the truth, but whatever you do, if you make a promise keep it." Ever since then, I have been shy of making a promise the
  198
  effect of which 1 have not thought out well ahead. I ought to say—and my hon. Friend behind me knows the truth of this—those men kept me going for hours at a time with questions, but before I left, they usually crowned me with a bush hat, or something like that. I think I have a collection of hats equal to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr Churchill) —though perhaps I am not permitted under the Rules of the House to mention him in this connection. I repeat that all I can say upon this question of Python tours is that it is receiving my attention, and when the Estimates are before the House I shall probably have something further to say upon the matter.
  There has been a complaint that information is not given to the men and I understand how harshly that works upon hon. Members in this House. If the men do not get proper information, hon Members have an extra heavy postbag, and that comes back to me in the Department itself. I have taken all the steps possible to try to give information to the men upon the question of release, and indeed other matters as well, and I think I had better .tell the House just what steps I have taken. An A.B.C.A. pamphlet was produced in 1944 giving the background to the release scheme, and a further one was produced in September, 1945, explaining the release machinery in detail. "Questions and Answers on Release" was distributed last November, and as hon. Members will probably remember, I wrote a not very eloquent introduction to that pamphlet. It was distributed last November on a scale of two per company, and a second edition is now in the press. It was intended as a brief from which officers were to address troops, and answer questions put to them. A personal letter was written to commanders-in-chief impressing upon them the importance of every officer making himself familiar with the contents of the booklet. A separate leaflet in the form of question and answer on the latest release programme was issued quite recently and sent to Commands, who were told to circulate it widely. Again, any important announcement on release, such as a new release programme, is sent out at once to all overseas forces newspapers, and published by them next day The major overseas Commands have produced

  199
  their own pamphlets on release some, like the Middle East Command in the form of question and answer, giving not only Government and War Office policy but also information and explanations peculiar to the circumstances of the Command in question. In addition, a representative of the Adjutant-General has visited the men overseas during the past 18 months, and has lectured. to large numbers of troops on many subjects, including the release scheme. And, of course, a tour has been made by the Adjutant-General himself, and I have made one too.
  In addition to this, eight copies of Hansard are sent out daily to each of the main overseas Commands, and further copies are sent to the chief education officer in each Command. Twelve copies are sent to India, 30 to the M.E.F., 20 to the C.M.F., and 24 to the B.A.O.R. That is an attempt to reach the men. We expect commands, right down to the units, to take steps to contact the men and give them the necessary information affecting them on this point.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the men in a unit have this information about release schemes within seven days of the announcement, does he regard 14 days as the period, or would he regard a month as unreasonable?
  Mr. Lawson: I certainly should regard a month as unreasonable.
  Mr. Wallace: What would be a reasonable period?
  Mr. Lawson: To get down to the units, I do not know that seven days is too little. We do what we can, and those who know the activity of the Adjutant-General on this particular point, and his desire to give education to the Forces, will agree that, as far as he is concerned, there is certainly no lack of enthusiasm for giving the men the necessary information.
  Mr. Callaghan: The trouble is that newspapers get there in seven days.
  Mr. Lawson:I thought to be as explicit as possible on the question of demobilisation, on Python, and on information to the Farces which were the three main questions raised yesterday. I have done what I could, to inform the
  200
  House upon those particular points. I hope that if what I have tried to achieve, has not been accomplished hon. Members will take their opportunity, when the Estimates come up, to ask for amplification.
  I come back to the point at which I started. After all, the main thing is to release as quickly as possible the men in the Services who have served this country well. I came into this House about 12 months after the Armistice following the last war. It would be almost impossible to describe the confusion, almost chaos, which then existed through all the Services. Yet that was 12 months after the war had finished. Seen in the light of that experience, demobilisation on the principle of age and service has been a great experiment and, I say, a great triumph, compared with what happened on the last occasion. It has been made possible, not only because of the principle of age and service but because of the fine bearing and self-control of the men in the Forces. I am deeply conscious that such conduct calls for the utmost efforts on the part of those of us who are immediately responsible to see that those who have safeguarded our liberty shall themselves share in it at the earliest possible moment. I can assure the House, and the men abroad who are serving this country, that the question of their condition and release—the release of those who have fought for the liberties of this land—receives my daily consideration, and is to us an extremely urgent question.
  4.0 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: The right hon. Gentleman has placed the main emphasis of his remarks upon demobilisation, and we all know from our mail bags that this is a very important question. I think the majority of young men and their parents and of those in industry at the present time want to know what are the prospects of future compulsory service. They want to know their liability, and they want some indication of the probable length of the service which they will have to put in in the various Forces. The actual length of service, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, depends upon the numbers in the regular Forces who will have enlisted voluntarily. I am well aware that, our commitments are ever changing. We

  201
  have just now left Persia; we hope soon to leave Java; we are not sure of our future commitments in the Middle East or in India. For the sake of argument I should like to take the figure which the Government have given of about 1,000,000 men as being the probable number we will need in the Forces for, shall we say, an interim period, until some of these problems have resolved themselves. This number will be composed in part of the men in the regular Forces.
  The Prime Minister said yesterday that he did not know to what extent voluntary enlistment would provide the total. I say to the Government that they must make up their minds to what extent they want voluntary enlistment. They must have a target figure, and do something about it. They must try to recruit the right numbers. I do not know yet whether they have made up their minds how many men they do want in the regular Forces. If they have they must tell the House. I do not see what purpose can be served by waiting to find out how many men will come forward. The policy of "wait and see," surely, belongs to the Liberal Party—and not to the present Government. Suppose, for the sake of argument, we say that we shall have a million for this interim period, and that we shall allow half a million men to join the regular forces for this interim period. If we do that, if we decide on that figure, then we shall be able to tell all the young men how long they will have to serve in the Forces. The "Economist" tells me that about 20 years ago—or, rather, in the years up to 20 years ago—there were born every year, approximately 400,000 male children. I assume therefore that we can expect an annual intake in each age group of approximately a quarter of a million. The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) put the figure much lower yesterday, but I daresay he was taking into account the numbers who managed to dodge the column, because of the calls of industry at the present time. I hope that if the Government decide, as they must decide, to go on with compulsory enlistment for some time, they will make it quite clear as soon as possible, what numbers, if any, can be allowed to dodge the column and I suggest to them —
  Mr. Tolley: On a point of Order. Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain what he means by "dodging the column "?
  Lieut.-Colonel Corbett:I apologise for using slang. I mean that there is a certain number, such as the 6,000 young men who have just been released for agriculture. Personally, I welcome them back. Far be it from me to suggest that they be conscripted. But that policy must not be stabilised for the next five years, and if the Government have not made up their minds what is to be their policy for the next five years, they cannot calculate the total number in each age group. I, personally, think that it would be much more satisfactory if we did make our minds up that nobody would be released for any particular industry. If we made up our minds to that, then, since this conscription is bound to go on, at any rate, for this interim period, industry would know where it stood and would be able to plan ahead accordingly.
  I now turn to our long-term policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has already recommended from this side of the House a policy advocating compulsory service. I, personally, am fully in accord with his policy. I say to the Government that they must make up their minds about this issue, and make up their minds soon. The Party opposite have. always been against a period of compulsory service: and I think that, in our heart of hearts, we are all against it, because we object to anything which restricts the liberty of the individual. At the same time, we have to balance against this the benefits which may accrue to the individual if he serves a period—say a year—of what we might call "national service training. "It sounds somewhat better than conscription. I think the benefits are many and considerable. Many of the men I met during my service in the war, who had been brought into the Army, were extraordinarily ignorant even about their own country. I remember on one occasion when I was driving out in my car saying to my driver, "'We go to Oxford next." I was surprised to discover he had never heard of the place. [Hon. Members: "What? "] He came from" Liverpool. I know there are a great many men who have never left their homes. If they did

  203
  a period of national service training, as I dub it, they would gain some experience, at least, of other parts of the country. I, personally, would strongly recommend that this training should be carried out in other countries as much as possible.
  There are other benefits which would be derived by men who did national training in the Armed Forces. They would learn all about the modern equipment, they would learn to drive, and learn much about mechanics; and they would not spend their whole time standing about the square, or learning to "spit and polish" and do all the other old-fashioned things to which there is so much objection. During the war we found that it was very necessary to combine with other nations. I hope that in "future our young men will get opportunities of training in other countries. I hope that their training will be carried out throughout the Empire. It would be a great benefit if every man knew that he had to do a year's national service, three months at home, say, and nine months abroad. I feel parents would welcome the opportunity for their children to have something like an university training, in the Armed Forces overseas, in the Dominions, the Colonies or some other part of the world—not only in our own Empire but in other Allied countries on the Continent, even in Russia. The more we combine with other countries, the better we get to know them, and if we all mix and train together we may be less inclined to fight one another in the end.
  I should like to say a word about the Territorial Army. I had the honour to command a Territorial regiment during the last war. I thought very highly of it —the personnel was excellent, and I grew extremely fond of the men. But I am not in favour of the Territorial Army being continued as at present constituted. I hope that the Government will decide to give every one a year's training. County connections, county regiments and county ties are of great benefit. They create esprit de corps, and I hope that we shall continue to have county regiments and county divisions like the 50th Division, from Durham and Northumberland, and many others, which gained fame in this war. I think that we should reserve county connections for primary recruiting,
  204
  and for the preliminary period of training. Afterwards the men will go abroad. I suggest that the county connections on a territorial basis should be responsible for the training of reserves. If we are to succeed in the future, we cannot come to the outbreak of war with men completely unprepared and untrained. If we had every man trained it would be a good start. He would then go back to industry and possibly forget all about his military training, so I suggest that all men having been recruited on a territorial basis, should join the Reserve, and be kept up to date for a period of years on a territorial basis. Instead of the Territorial Army being responsible for training men from scratch, which it never had time to do and did not succeed in doing in peace time, it should be-responsible for keeping men up to date with modern equipment.
  4.12 p.m.
  Captain Swingler: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) will forgive me if I do not immediately follow him in discussion about the system of conscription, to which I propose to return later. I would like, first, to deal with some of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in reply to points raised about demobilisation in yesterday's Debate. 1 think that we can all agree with what the Secretary of State for War said about the process of demobilisation, and congratulate the Government on the comparatively smooth working of the programme up to the present time under the "age and service "principle, which was laid down and agreed to in this House as the basis for demobilisation.
  I think, however, that when we look at the White Paper on defence and consider the explanations which have been given about it we must agree that the forecasts up to June and the end of the year reveal considerable disparities between the Services, which are very disturbing to the men in the Army. I do not feel that the explanation given by the Secretary of State, when he referred to the release pamphlet which was issued, and the previous explanations which have been given was satisfactory. We all know that in this process of demobilisation on the principle of age and service, there are bound to be inequalities in the Services, and between the Services. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that it has always

  205
  been said, that every effort would be made by His Majesty's Government and the Service Departments to reduce these disparities to a minimum. By comparison of the position of the men in the Army, and the men in the Navy at the end of June of this year, the disparities far from having been kept under control or reduced, have actually increased to the extent of 20 groups. This announcement is made at a time when the men in the Services have found that the rates of release for men in the Army in June, 1946, are less than 50 per cent. of the rates of release that took place in January, 1946.
  The point that has to be answered is what actions have been taken and what efforts made to keep these disparities under control and to reduce them. The facts presented to us are cold facts and cold statistics. I would point out to the Secretary of State in reference to his statement that it is not worth while to transfer men from one Service to another, that these facts, as they affect men in the Services who have spent long years overseas, appear in a rather different light, and when they affect them personally produce a different attitude. I quote one example of the way in which they affect the individual from a letter which 1 have received from a constituent who is at present in South-East Asia. He says:
  " I joined the Royal Air Force on 5th February, 1943, and my brother-in-law joined the Navy on 3rd January, 1943. I am 39 years of age and my demobilisation group is 33. My brother-in-law is five years younger and was group 39. He walked into his home, a civilian, on 1st January of this year. I shall be lucky if I can do the same on 1st July."
  In fact, he will not according to this programme; it will be considerably later. Here is a man whose brother-in-law, five years younger, who has done about the same period of service has already been demobilised and will have been demobilised, according to the working of this programme, six months before the other man is demobilised. What we want to know is what efforts have been made, as regards men in the Army who are seriously affected by this programme, to relieve their position. It is certainly well worth while for the Government. to make every effort to transfer men who have had a long period of service abroad from one Service to another, in order to
  206
  equalise the rates of release between the Services.
  It is worth while to make every effort, if necessary, to increase the burden so far as occupation commitments are concerned on other Services in order to take some of that burden off the shoulders of men in the Army. It is certainly worth while that the allocation of men who are called up in this period should be such that every consideration will be given to putting men in the Army as replacements, instead of having to allocate men between the different Services, in some sort of proportion, although there is a great inequality in the rates of release according to the "age and service" plan.
  It is not enough to reiterate that the men in the Services have been warned that there are going to be disparities. They understand that. They felt, despite their disappointment, that every effort would be made to keep these disparities down as much as possible, but when there is a disparity of 20 groups between one Service and another, they are entitled to know what efforts have been made to reduce the disparities, and what efforts are now being made by transferring men, by calling up additional manpower, and so on to enable inequalities to be brought down. They are entitled to know that according to the "age and service" plan equal justice shall be given to them.
  I would ask the Secretary of State for War to look very seriously into the point that was made by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) yesterday, when he spoke of the possibility of demobilising men in the Services up to the "age and service" group 40. I certainly think it desirable, if it is possible by strenuous efforts to reduce our commitments, that every effort should be made by the Service Ministers to bring that about. We have been told that as regards reduction in the rate of release, a limiting factor all the time is the existence of our military commitments. We certainly agree that it was patently obvious that the rate of release was going to be drastically reduced at some time, because of .the enormous commitments of this country in military occupation.
  There is one point, however, about these military commitments which I should like to bring forward for the consideration of the House. I think it is true, broadly speaking, that the military

  207
  forces of occupation, as is the case in Germany, for example, are divided into two sorts of troops. There are, first, administrative troops for the purpose of carrying out various jobs and functions under military government. In the second place, there is the potential fighting force. There are troops all over the world who are mostly idle, because they are simply there in order to kill time—we hope they are only there in order to kill time. They have to be stationed there in case of unrest arising, so that they can be employed to maintain law and order. They are also there, broadly speaking, for the purposes of defence. Many speakers in this Debate have spoken of those Forces, and have considered the question of the maintenance of nearly 2,000,000 men in the Services at the end of June, and more than 1,000,000 at the end of the year, which is a very large percentage of our total manpower as well as being a vast expenditure. The point I would emphasise is that it is not just a question of manpower; it is a question of the combination of manpower with machine power and motor power, and, above all, it is a question of the result of that combination. in the case of those fighting forces in terms of fire power. This was a question which was very important before the war and during the war. I might say it is a question of brain power being applied to that combination.
  During the war a tremendous effort was made in the case of the Army in the field of mechanisation and in the direction of increasing the mobile power of our Forces, but I believe there are still tremendous possibilities in that field. There are still great possibilities of substituting machines and motors for men, and reducing the amount of manpower required for military occupational purposes by increasing the degree of mechanisation and motorisation of the forces. There are still prevalent, I believe, in high places, those influences of military conservatism which operate in favour of the maintenance of vast masses of men under arms, as if there were some virtue in that. The virtue which I should like to advocate is the virtue of attempting to develop mechanisation in the Forces in the same way as is happening in modern industry—the substitution of the machine and the motor for the man. I ask the Secretary of State for
  208
  War to look very seriously at the present developments in our forces and particularly our occupation forces, in relation to mechanical and technical standards, bearing in mind what happened after the last war, and bearing in mind the neglect of our Army in the period between the two wars in this respect. Notwithstanding the fact that the tank was invented in this country in the whole period between the two world wars there was a complete neglect of the development of mechanisation in the Forces. During the war a tremendous development took place in all fields of mechanisation. I still maintain that there are tremendous possibilities in the future for improvement in the quality of machines and vehicles for our forces and the substitution of mechanised means for manpower. I ask the Government, therefore, seriously to look into that side of the question from the point of view of reducing the manpower required for our occupational forces.
  Finally, I should like to say one or two words on the subject raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), namely, the future of compulsory military service. I believe we must accept compulsory military service in the future not from the point of view which the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow put forward, namely the benefits of such service—which is, I believe, repugnant to the most of us as was said often in yesterday's Debate—but from the point of view that the actual facts of the moment necessitate compulsory military service for some time to come. I think, as that is so, there is every advantage in an immediate decision being reached on the question of compulsory military service, its period and its future. At the moment, without such a decision, we are getting the worst of both worlds. Neither the Government nor the individual citizen who is about to be called up can do any of that planning which is a necessity today, but if we had a decision en the question it would greatly help. I urge the Government not to delay any longer their decision on this question. Even if it is only a temporary decision and given for a period the Government should give it, so that the individual citizen, who is to be called up in the middle of his educational or industrial career, will know where he stands, how long he is going to be away, and what his future is to be.

  209
  That is vitally important for the morale of the men, as well as for their future. I think we have got to say that compulsory military service must continue, in order to get the men with long service, out of the Army as quickly as possible. That is the keystone. The men with long years of service must come out, and we must call up young men to replace them. But let us enable those men who are being called up to have some knowledge of their future so that they can plan their educational or industrial careers. Let us give them a chance and let the Government give themselves a chance to make their own plans regarding the forces and the necessary reforms which I think should be introduced with the continuance of compulsory military service, so that they shall be able to get on with the job. I believe it was Voltaire who attributed to the British people what he considered "the greatest gift of nature," namely, a cool head. I would urge the Government to have a cool head' about this problem, and, as well as having cool heads, to take necessary risks at any rate to give us the decision which I have suggested, and to look further into the question of speeding up demobilisation.
  4.29 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp: I want to detain the House for a few moments with some questions which I wish to ask, and some suggestions which I have to make on the White Paper. In some respects we seem to have got away from the White Paper, and to be among the coils of Python. I should like the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply to give us one or two answers on certain points. Among the commitments in the White Paper there is no mention of any defence of the home country, no statement about establishments at home. Looking at the White Paper and those commitments, it would appear that in future there are to be a number of foreign legions, with no service at all at home. I know that is not accurate, but that is how it appears from the White Paper. I am certain that anybody reading it will get that idea, and will not be encouraged to join the Forces voluntarily. The Royal Air Force used to have a slogan "Join the R.A.F. and see the world." The White Paper gives the im-
  210
  pression that the new slogan will be, "Join the Services and never get home."
  Another point which has not been brought out in the White Paper is the question of a central and strategic reserve. I would like to know what the Government's proposals are about that, and what consideration has been given to the question of where that strategic reserve will train. I suggest that East Africa might be considered. I had a good deal of service there. I took part in the rehearsal of a combined operation before the invasion of Madagascar, and also in brigade exercises in the desert, which was equivalent to the kind of country to be found in North Africa, and, finally, in the hills of Kenya, 6,000 feet up, in dense jungle, where we trained for jungle warfare in Burma. Incidentally, in that last exercise we were able to blow up, in 20 different places, a road, or, rather, a track. The job was done properly, without any question of the umpires having to decide. The advancing forces had to put the road in good repair. It was good training, and at the end of that time the work of the sappers was so good that the inhabitants very much appreciated the results of the exercise.
  I do not think we see enough in the White Paper of what the Government are doing to encourage volunteers for the Forces. I have here a little book—and hon. Members opposite need not be worried; it does not contain promises made at the Election—the only one I have seen which tries to encourage volunteering for the Army. It is called, "Why drop Out?" and sets out clearly the pay code. But not enough has been done. Why not distribute these books everywhere? Why not use posters to try to encourage people to join the Services? It is mentioned in the book that marriage allowance will be paid to soldiers at the age of 21. That is very nice, but if the Minister of Health would cooperate and add to the book, "Houses when you get married, "I am sure there would be no trouble in getting all the recruits needed for the Services.
  Paragraph 15 (c) of the White Paper refers to the use of accumulated stocks. I imagine that means that we shall make the best use of our accumulated stocks, and not waste the taxpayers' money. That is a very laudable idea, but

  211
  I would like to know whether the Army must continue to use these old stocks for a long time, and be trained with obsolete material. If so, that would be a serious drawback. I remember, in 1935, when I was attached to the Territorial Army, having to use ammunition which was made in 1914, and was so marked. That was certainly using accumulated stocks, but it did not improve our musketry. There is also a paragraph in the White Paper which deals with the Territorial Army and cadet forces, but which does not seem to arrive at any decisive conclusion. It merely states that the question is being considered. We ought to know what is to be the future of these auxiliary Forces. Is service in them to be compulsory? That has not been mentioned.
  With regard to making the best use of our manpower in the Colonies, I had the honour to serve in the East African Forces for nearly three years. I was with them the whole way, from Nairobi to Addis Ababa, and I can say that they could be made into excellent material. We ought to try to economise in our manpower in this country by using the men of our Colonies. They enjoy being in the Services, and they can be used for many' different jobs. If we do that, it will not only save our manpower, but will give those men a tremendous advantage in education and everything else which will improve them for their future life in their own countries. My final plea is that I may have an answer to some of the questions I have put to the Government.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Yates: I have been extremely interested in this Debate, having sat through most of the speeches, and while I am sympathetic to the suggestions which have been made in favour of reducing the numbers of our Armed Forces I must say that I think the Government in being able to reduce numbers as they have done up to the present, if they keep within the target, are facing the problem in a very accomplished manner. I, for one, am prepared to say that the Government are working in a gratifying way in their attempts to deal with the colossal problem of transferring 9,000,000 men and women from the Armed Forces, and munition industries, to peacetime industries.
  212
  I am deeply concerned about the future, and about conscription. The Prime Minister said yesterday that armed forces are an expression of policy. I feel that that view is correct. What is to be our policy, what is to be our attitude, in regard to compulsory service? It depends upon the kind of world we envisage. Either we are to have a world in which each country is planning for another war, in which nations are to be dependent upon their own strength, or else we must advocate a world in which war for national purposes is to be abolished. If the United Nations organisation works in accordance with that second assumption, it is unnecessary that we should have to face the future with a conscripted army for this country. I was extremely surprised when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) say yesterday, quite definitely, that hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, and the Conservative Party, had decided in favour of compulsory military training during peacetime.
  Mr. McKie: He did not say that.
  Mr. Yates: Oh yes he did, and without giving a single reason as to why it should be so. Apart from the fact that it was advocated on the ground that it would be a continued education, there has been no reason given why there should be compulsory military training. In view of the present state of affairs, it is quite- wrong, and unnecessary, whatever may be the position at the present time—and I do not doubt the necessity for calling up young men at the moment—for us to make up our minds definitely for the future that there shall be compulsory training. There is no justification for it. Surely the discovery of atomic energy must have made some difference to the position in regard to armed forces. Captain Liddell Hart recently wrote:
  "It seems to me that, while there is a little doubt whether the atomic bomb will end war, or end the world, or both, it should, at least, spell the end of conscription, for it makes nonsense of that military system."
  The atomic bomb surely alters the significance of large armies. If we are to have a satisfactory peace policy, we should think only of the possibility of an international police force, which should not require compulsory military training in this country. I am, therefore, very

  213
  interested in the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden, and also by an hon. Member who spoke earlier today, about the necessity for education. I have been a member of the Birmingham local education authority for some years, and, as governor of seven of the grammar schools in Birmingham, I claim to have some interest in the necessity for continued education. I deny that, in order to extend and continue education on the proper lines, it is necessary for us to incorporate a military training scheme. I do not think it is at all necessary. Sir William Beveridge, writing recently in "The Star," said:
  " Boys and girls, in whatever rank of life they are born, who are clever enough to profit by a university education, ought to get it at the time when it is likely to be most useful to them and the community.".
  I submit that real education, which is to continue from 18 years onwards, ought to continue in accordance with the ability of the young people to benefit from it, and that they should not have these delays imposed upon them. Facing the future, if there should be a next war— and I pray that there will not be a next war—but, if that great calamity should fall upon us. then I say, quite frankly, it is better that our youth should be trained as scientists instead of being subjected to the kind of military training which has been suggested. I do not believe that military conscription has ever prevented war. It causes suspicion to grow between nations. It is alien to British tradition, and is an outrage against liberty. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, speaking at the Trades Union Congress last year, made this statement:
  " Now that the rights of democracy and freedom have been secured, it is quite impossible to contemplate continuing anything which could be described as industrial conscription."
  If it is right in regard to industrial conscription, then, for the same reason, it is right in regard to military conscription. I am flabbergasted that the Opposition in this House should, quite blatantly, advocate military conscription, in view of the many statements we have heard from them recently about belief in individual liberty. They threaten to hold us up, night after night, with Prayers in favour of annulling Orders which they regard as reckless infringements on human liberties.
  214
  To introduce in peacetime for this country a system of military conscription would be, in my judgment, the greatest infringement of human rights and liberties which could be introduced.
  Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Surely the votes of hon. Members opposite on some of those Prayers are not quite consistent with the statement which the hon. Member is making.
  Mr. Yates: I would point out, that we on this side of the House believe in certain demands which are essential in the present transitional period, but, in admitting that, we accept the view that the worst kind of cumpulsion is to compel our young men to be conscripted in a military machine in time of peace for the future. It is quite unreasonable.
  Major Boyd-Carpenter: In view of what the hon. Member has just said, would he be good enough to tell the House how he voted upon the Prayer to annul Statutory Rule and Order 1620, of 1945?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I cannot allow the hon. Member to answer that question, which is quite out of Order.
  Mr. Yates: I can only say that many of us on this side of the House are watching very carefully and very closely every kind of regulation which cuts across human rights and liberties. As soon as we are convinced that any kind of regulation is unnecessary, we shall speak very strongly.
  This is the time to secure international agreement for the abolition of conscription, and to release our energies and resources for the rebuilding of devastated countries throughout the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) said yesterday that very few hon. Members on either side of the House could object to conscription in principle. The Labour movement in this country has never accepted the principle of military conscription in time of peace, and it would be necessary to face a conference of the Labour Party before military conscription for all time could be regarded as being within its policy. Our great leader, Keir Hardie, once said that conscription is the badge of the slave. When the Military Training Bill was

  215
  before the House in May, 1939, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, and was leading the Opposition in opposing the Military Training Bill, said:
  " We consider conscription to be a bad thing in .itself." —[Official Report, 8th May, 1939; Vol. 347, c. 152]
  That has been the view of the Labour movement of this country I think it would be the greatest tragedy to our movement and to this country it we, as a Labour Government, were to decide permanently to fix a period of compulsory military training. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that military training affords a grand opportunity from the point of view of education. do they wish to apply compulsory military training to women, because we believe in equality of education and in equality of opportunity? No. I think compulsory military training is absolutely wrong. It is morally wrong, it is politically futile, and, in my judgment, it is intellectually stupid. While I think the Government have made a great attempt to reduce the Armed Forces, in which we give them all possible support, I think they are very wise at this time indefinitely not deciding to impose a compulsory system. I hope they will consider the matter most carefully and seriously before they decide permanently upon any compulsory system. In view of the attitude of Members of the Conservative Party, it will remain for many of us on this side of the House to uphold what we believe to be the most fundamental human rights. Captain Liddell Hart, in a pamphlet entitled Willing Service or Compulsory? "concluded with the following words, which I commend to the House:
  " Here in England we should uphold the torch of freedom and keep alight the flame of reason."
  4.54 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Ross: The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) has told us what he thinks about conscription, and I have listened to him with interest. I noticed the enthusiastic applause of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who spoke yesterday when his main argument against compulsory military training was that there was nobody he would ever have to fight. In 1939, the hon. Member
  216
  for Westhoughton was just as enthusiastically against conscription as he is now, although I do not think he could then have used quite the same argument. It is very unlikely that either of the two hon. Members, whose obvious sincerity one appreciates, is likely to be moved by any argument, although I would suggest that all the liberties which we and the two hon. Members enjoy depend upon the capacity of the country to protect itself, as has been shown so recently. I am often puzzled by the attitude towards conscription of hon. Members opposite. I am no enthusiast for conscription. If we could do without it, so much the better. It is a question of whether we can do without it.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
  Sir R. Ross: I know what is coming.
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman has such love for military conscription, why is it not imposed in his own territory?
  Sir R. Ross: I knew I would be asked that question. It is not imposed because the hon. Member and others voted against its being enforced there. I spoke in favour of its imposition, and I told against my own side in the Lobby, but the hon. Member for Westhoughton and all his hon. Friends, including the entire Communist Party, voted in such a way as to deny us the same equal privilege of serving our country in the war. It could not be enforced there because, once there is agitation against a thing, one cannot carry people shrieking to the recruiting station.
  Mr. McGovern: Does the hon. Member suggest that if conscription had been applied in Northern Ireland, his constituents would have required to be carried to the recruiting station?
  Sir R. Ross: All those who did not vote for me would have had to be. I was about to say, when interrupted, that the curious thing about hon. Members opposite is the way in which they divide their attitude towards industrial strife and national strife. Anybody who does not support his trade union in an industrial dispute is a blackleg, and all sorts of other things that I cannot mention here; but the only people who are supposed to fight for

  217
  their country in the world arena are volunteers, presumably of the Tory Party. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to want to regularise service to the State.
  I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Captain Swingler), particularly his suggestion for economy in manpower by means of more mechanisation. As regards mobility, there is much to be said for that. Aircraft are being used—as they ought 10 be—to carry troops and materials from one part of the world to another. As regards fire power, however, there is another situation. I do not know to what extent the hon. and gallant Member has had experience of civil or quasi-civil disturbances. We know that one man with a machine gun is much more deadly than 20 men standing about in battle-dress, but if there are 20 men standing about, they are much more likely to prevent a riot or trouble from starting than is one man with a machine gun. The whole aim and purpose of the civil power is to prevent trouble breaking out, because once it has broken out there is sure to be damage and probably bloodshed. In that sense, one still needs the big battalions. There is, therefore, the need for having a large number of soldiers to be seen. As to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion about using airmen and sailors as soldiers, I think that would raise very serious technical difficulties. I have some slight knowledge of the Air Force, having been attached to it for two and a half years, and some knowledge of the Navy, having been, for four years, the lowest form of political life to be found at the Admiralty, a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I think there are many technical difficulties in switching people from one Service to another in these very technical days when everything has become so specialised.
  As regards the whole question of conscription, I must say that I very much prefer the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) who spoke yesterday, and who has, I think, as much military experience as any of us. The British tradition has always been to win a war from a most shocking start, and, having won the war, to go completely to sleep. In the old days the slumber-producing slogan was a very virile one to the effect that one Englishman could fight an
  218
  astronomical number of foreigners. We do not hear that any more, although in all three Services it has been shown, at all events, to have a very solid basis of truth. But it is very hard on the one Englishman set up to fight the large number of foreigners. More recently, two other arguments are generally used. One is now beginning to hear exactly the same type of speech as one heard after the last war—a speech all the more dangerous because of its sincerity. It is the kind of speech to which we have just listened. We were told that there is no necessity to be able to defend ourselves, because everything will be taken care of by international agreement. I wish we could get an international agreement to prohibit conscription everywhere. But it is preposterous to think of getting some countries—which I will not name— to abolish conscription.
  An hon. and gallant Gentleman said yesterday that the submarine ought to be abolished by international agreement. All my lifetime, and ever since there have been submarines, the British Admiralty wanted to have them abolished by international agreement. They did abolish them by force in the German Navy for a while, but they could not keep them abolished. Therefore, we must be very careful. We cannot let the liberties of the people of this country depend solely on international agreements and, more particularly, on international agreements which have not yet materialised. The other arguments for going to sleep is that if we are all to be blown up by an atom bomb, what is the use? I remember hearing a most eloquent speech by Sir Oswald Moseley during his Socialist manifestations on the futility of a naval programme. It was just on those lines. Yet, after all those speeches and all the thought which was given to the matter between the wars, we were faced with a situation in which only the defence forces of the country and the indomitable spirit of its citizens saved us from extinction. Incidentally as regards the question of slumber, I was rather interested that the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford should have said it was a pity we did not have more mechanisation of the Army. If he studies the Army Estimates for any year during which the two Labour Governments were in power, he will find that that particular Vote was drastically reduced year after year.

  219
  To return to the question of "What is the use?" Up to the present there is always the danger of attack, and I only hope one will be able to have some confidence that that danger will be reduced through the activities of the United Nations organisation. The United Nations organisation has made a start. It could have been better, but it could have been a good deal worse. We may find in the future that it will be a great help to the safety and security of the country, but we cannot say so now. Therefore, I am convinced that it would be the utmost folly not to be adequately armed in the present state of the world. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) made a point which I think is of great importance, and one which has been inherent in many speeches of hon. and right hon. Members. He stressed the importance of scientific investigation and Scientific research. We are living in an age which is changing very fast and, unfortunately, it is changing fastest of all, perhaps, in the realm of war and weapons of war.
  The co-operation of the fighting Services is probably the greatest single factor of importance with which we are concerned, and I would ask the Government not to scrap the present system without considerable thought. There are some people who own motor cars and wireless sets, and whose one pleasure is taking them apart. I hope we shall not have any reform on the principle of "reform for reform's sake. "The casualties in the last war were very considerable. I am not at all sure that there were not more casualties in the Battle of the Somme, alone, than there were in the whole of the war which has just ended. That goes, I am afraid, not to the credit of my generation, but to that of the succeeding generation which so gallantly fought, in this war. This applies more particularly to the command, even though it does not seem right to the Government to give those great men—who, by their skill, saved so many thousands of British lives—the awards which are traditionally associated with commands in a European war such as has just been concluded. There has never been a war taking it all in all, in which the command, and particularly the Higher Command, has been more ably wielded than in this war.
  220
  As anyone who has served in the Armed Forces knows, whenever one is told that a decision on a point has been taken on a very high level, one is always filled with extreme disquiet and anxiety because, so often, the people who take decisions on very high levels have no idea what is going on at very low levels. Therefore, I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister state yesterday that the College of Imperial Defence is to be reconstituted. I look upon that college as a very valuable institution. If we can get a common staff doctrine dealing with problems presented to the Army, Navy and Air Force and get similar replies from each of the Forces, we shall have gone a very long way towards co-ordination. That was the effect, although not the complete effect, of the College of Imperial Defence.
  There is an aspect of our defence which has not been touched upon in the White Paper, but which, I think, is of great importance—perhaps of greater importance than ever before. It is the geographical question of bases and aerodromes from which to protect our vital interests. The aerodrome is a comparatively new factor and an even more important one perhaps than the naval base since fleets in the Pacific have shown a capacity for getting on without any fixed bases, although it may not have been so convenient as if they had. In that connection 1 have no hesitation at all in alluding to the importance of Northern Ireland because it was always accepted by British statesmen, from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, down to the 1930's, that it was essential for the safety of Great Britain that there should be no possibility of a hostile force coming from that direction. Fortunately, through the obstinacy of my hon. Friends and myself, Great Britain had a base there during the war and although no attempt was made to close the frontier to the emissaries of the German Minister in Dublin—who could watch the convoys going out from Antrim Head—British Forces in Northern Ireland were sufficient to prevent it becoming another Norway as it might easily have done.
  We heard yesterday a very interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Maclean) about Persia. I do recommend to the Government the extreme importance of seeing that we are in a position to defend ourselves as well as seeing that we have the

  221
  forces with which to do so. Every other large country is looking to that side of the problem. I would mention both that the United States of America and the Soviet Union, and I mention them in the same breath. The United States of America is looking for defensive bases both in British territory and in the Pacific, and is determined to have them. Of course we all know that the Soviet Union has bases from Danish territory in the Baltic to Port Arthur in Chinese territory in the Pacific. We alone of the great Powers who have fought in this war do not seem to be interested in the question at all. Is the Government quite satisfied that the narrows of the Mediterranean, through which flows our life blood, are adequately protected by the gallant little island of Malta alone? It does not seem to have been a question which anyone has thought about very much.
  I do not wish to detain the House any longer and I have not spoken on the fashionable subject of release from the forces. This is a very difficult matter, and my only comment—which I hope will bring great comfort to the Government—is to repeat the axiom displayed in the saloon in the American Far West, "Don't shoot the pianist, he's doing his best."
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Mikardo: Sometimes it seems to be considered, both inside and outside this House, that a man is not entitled to any opinions about the defence forces, unless he was both born in the cannon's mouth and nurtured in the quartermaster's stores. It seems to be regarded as the lowest type of crime for a civilian to have any views at all about the Forces. But I intervene in this Debate especially to make the point that we need to apply to the organisation, management, and administration of the defence forces some of those modern methods, techniques and principles which have been developed in civilian industry. I would for the moment look upon the defence Services, not so much as machines for making war, or for the defence of the realm, as from the point of view that they are an industry which is a very large consumer of labour at a time when labour is very short—a large consumer of what is, from some standpoints, the best type of labour. If any excuse were needed for this approach it is to be found in paragraph 12 of the White Paper, in which is a reference to:
  222
  " Financial and manpower considerations arising from the equally important claims of our economic situation."
  That sentence, which I was very glad to read in the White Paper, is of major importance, and the point is that under present conditions the Armed Forces have to get into a queue with all the other economic demands on manpower.
  Never before have the Armed Forces had to line up for the manpower they want. Before the last war, the small forces which were thought to be necessary for defence were recruited to a not inconsiderable extent, as the offshoots of an economy of under-employment. While it is true that many fine young men went into the Services because they felt a call in that direction, and felt that they had a vocation there, it is also true that large numbers of men enlisted as a pis aller, because they felt they could not get any other job after having waited for a long time. This method of recruitment, we hope, has disappeared for all time. The full employment policy of the present Government will ensure this.
  During the war again we had no competition on a level of equality between the Armed Forces and industry for manpower, and it was correct that that should be so. It was inevitable during the war that the Armed Forces should automatically go to the head of the queue for manpower, and what happened in fact was that the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force put in their requisitions for labour, these requisitions were automatically and quite rightly honoured with very little question or no question at all, leaving all the remaniing demands of industry, trade, government service, and local service to do the best they could with whatever labour was left over. There was a condition during the war, as there is now, in which the demand for labour was greater than the supply, and we gave unquestioned priority to the Services. Nobody complains of that happening during a war, but there is no justification for it now.
  From the sentence in the White Paper which I have quoted, it seems to me that the condition which exists now is that the Services have to get into the queue on a basis of equality with the needs of industry for the home market, for the overseas market, and with all other sources of demand for manpower. Their needs have

  223
  to be satisfied out of that queue, on exactly the same conditions as those on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will satisfy any other demands for manpower—namely, only on proof being presented that the existing manpower is being used with the utmost economy. The Minister will not give an industry any more labour, until he makes sure that they are using their existing labour economically, and I think precisely the same attitude should be adopted towards that industry which is represented by the defence Services.
  A few days ago the Prime Minister drew a distinction between output per man hour and output per nation year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) affected not to understand that distinction, but I think it is clear to anybody who has given any study at all to this question of the economic utilisation of labour. What I understood the Prime Minister to mean was that when we consider production per man hour we must consider not merely the production of that man who happens to be an operative worker on a factory bench, but production for all the hours of all the men however they are occupied, whether it be. in manufacturing or commercial activities, transport, distribution, or indeed in the defence Services. An industry, which is to absorb 1·2 million men, measured in terms of labour demands, is one of the four or five major industries of the country, and we cannot afford to have that industry using its labour inefficiently, any more than we can have the engineering industry using its labour inefficiently.
  I want to put it to the House, with great respect, that, measured objectively, the efficiency of the Armed Forces on this one question of the economic utilisation of labour is much lower than that of any civilian industry. I am not competent to speak of their efficiency on any other score, but in many respects the defence Services are using methods and techniques in the handling of labour, which civilian industry abandoned 20 or 30 years ago. You cannot run any manufacturing trade without measuring, with a very hgh degree of precision, the relationships between available labour and capacity, and the labour-utilisation demands of the job. One has to marry capacity with avail-ability of labour, to a very high degree
  224
  of precision, and in a manufacturing trade, one cannot afford to use hit-and-miss methods in deciding what sort and what size of labour force you need.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden talked yesterday, and quite rightly, about cutting our coat according to our cloth. Sometimes the cutting of the manpower coat provides many headaches for those who have to manage that manpower; sometimes they have to work harder and to think harder when manpower is short, and they have to improvise, they have to draft men out of one job into another. Sometimes this involves re-training, and it is always much more difficult to manage any job with tight manpower than it is with an available pool of manpower; you have to change programmes very often to fit your labour, instead of taking the labour you want to fit your programme. We have learned to do these things in industry because we have had to, and therefore we have learned to adopt a new, miserly attitude to the use of manpower. In industry we have become misers of labour. It hurts us to see idle time, it hurts us to see skill not fully utilised, but I do not believe that that miserly attitude to the utilisation of labour has yet permeated very far amongst the higher officers of our defence Services. I say that again with respect.
  This development of a new attitude to the use of manpower, which has perhaps been the most marked feature of industrial development during the last few years, is based upon three techniques: that of vocational selection, that of scientific training, and that of operation study. Of these three techniques, only the first has been applied to any significant extent to the Armed Forces. During the war great strides were made in vocational selection in those Forces. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden said yesterday that of all the people who had been selected as pilots during the war by these methods, one-third had proved to be unsatisfactory.
  Major Boyd-Carpenter: In 1941.
  Mr. Mikardo: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon if I misquoted him. However, that figure, which apparently he thought to be a bad one, is not really bad at all. Two-thirds of successes are really very much higher than was ever

  225
  achieved in the Defence Services before 1941, and I think it is a very much higher figure of correlating the shape of the peg with the shape of the hole than you get over the nation as a whole. I tremble to think what would happen if we applied the tests of vocational selection to the present membership of this august House, and I question very much whether those who have scientifically assessed aptitudes required for the job would number very much more than two-thirds of the Members; in fact, I hope it will not cause offence if I say that the present balance of parties leads me to believe that we should get an answer round about that figure.
  I do not suggest for a moment that there are not people in the Services, as elsewhere, who are maladjusted to their jobs, but we have done a great deal in that direction. I want to see two more things done in regard to this question of vocational selection in the Services. It was done during the war, as it had to be done, very roughly and hurriedly indeed. Now that we are dealing with smaller volumes of men, and now that we have more leisure I want to see an intensification of this technique of vocational selection as applied to the Armed Forces. Secondly, I want to see its extension to sections of the Armed Forces to which it has hitherto not been applied. For the most part we have concentrated our efforts, and quite rightly, on the people whose selection was most difficult and delicate, such as pilots. That is natural because, of course, a maladjusted pilot is a much greater danger to his Service than a maladjusted storekeeper or a maladjusted batman. However, we should remember that a maladjusted storekeeper or a maladjusted batman is just as unhappy and discontented and therefore as inefficient, as is a maladjusted pilot or anybody else. I believe that by this technique of vocational selection, we can greatly reduce the manpower demands of the Services, because I am not sure that we shall need 1·2 million men if all the men we take into the Armed Forces are square pegs in square holes. Therefore, there may be much room for saving in that direction.
  Now I come to the second important technique affecting the economic utilisation of manpower, scientific training. Here I repeat that the defence Services are using methods of training their labour
  226
  which were abandoned by civilian industries many years ago. There has been an improvement in recent years, but most training methods in the Services, measured by the standards of training methods in civilian industries, are at least 20 years out of date. Twenty years ago we taught a boy coming into an engineering factory in almost exactly the same way as a soldier coming into the Army is taught now; in fact he was not taught at all, he was made to learn to pick things up for himself. He was brought into the shop and attached in some nebulous way to some skilled man in the shop and was told to hang around, use his eyes, and pick up what he could without getting too much in the way of the skilled fitter who was supposed to be his mentor. That is not being taught as a boy is taught geography and arithmetic at school. It is having to pick things up as he goes, and that is precisely what happens to a not inconsiderable extent in the Armed Forces at present. In exactly the same way as in the old days the man who taught the new entrant in the engineering shop was selected, not because he had any aptitude for teaching at all but only because he was the most skilled fitter in the shop—and the most skilled fitter may well be the worst teacher, just as the best historian is sometimes the worst teacher of history. The man who, for the most part, is selected as an instructor in the Army is selected not because he has exhibited any skill or aptitude in teaching, but because he is the smartest soldier. That seems to be the general criterion, although it does not follow that the smartest soldier is the best teacher of soldiering by any means. It seems sometimes that the requirements demanded of an instructor in the Army are a smart salute, a loud voice, and a pyrotechnic vocabulary.
  Brigadier Head: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? Is he speaking on this subject with personal experience of the modern, up-to-date and very technical trainees who have served the Army so well?
  Mr. Mikardo: I said when I began that I was speaking, I hoped, as an enlightened outsider. I have some knowledge of the great improvements, and they are great, in this direction but I would say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman—
  Mr. Walter Fletcher Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury) rose —
  Mr. Mikardo: May I answer one hon. Gentleman before bang interrupted by another? I would say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, that I think there is still, in spite of these improvements, a great leeway to make up by comparison with the standards of industry. I say this without any bitter spirit of criticism. This is not a partisan point. We all want to see the highest degree of efficiency, and to see recent improvements carried to their logical conclusions.
  On the third technique in the economic use of manpower, the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) will perhaps concede me this point. A very large number of men in the uniformed Services are engaged in occupations which do not differ substantially from the same occupations in civilian industries. The increasing urge to wards specialisation in the Forces has meant that there are more back ground personnel to each fighter. Now there are very large numbers not only of doctors, dentists and cooks but of wages clerks, accounts clerks, store keepers and store clerks. I should not be surprised if these ancillary personnel do not represent more than half of the total strength of the Armed Forces. Here are fields in which a great deal of work on efficient utilisation of labour can be done. In civilian industry we do not guess how many storekeepers we want in a store, but calculate that from a formula the basic data on which are the number of items held in the store and of incoming consignments and outgoing issues. But take for example the stores in maintenance units in the Royal Air Force which hold spares for aircraft and equipment. These are almost an exact duplication of the stores in the factories manufacturing those aircraft and equipment. The level of staffing in maintenance unit stores is very much higher than in the almost identical stores of the factories. I am by no means sure that the very large sections of the Armed Forces whose job is to calculate and pay wages use all the mechanical aids to this function now so freely used in civilian industry. I think someone who knows the up-to-date techniques ought to go to find out—
  Air-Commodore Harvey Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield) rose —
  Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me I ought to finish in a moment or two.
  I would remind hon. Members that, with the possible exception of agriculture, no industry makes so much use as the Armed Forces of the most costly form of motive power—human muscular energy, in spite of all the extension of mechanisation. Here is a field in which we could do a great deal if an outside independent body went around establishments and examined economic utilisation of labour. During the war labour supply inspectors went through factories as though with a tooth comb. Where they saw labour wasted, they stopped the waste. If they saw 10 typists doing the work of nine, they took the tenth typist and put her where she was needed. If a toolmaker was doing the work of a skilled fitter they put him where he could be of more use. We have had the Select Committee on National Expenditure inquiring into industries, and we have had working parties and investigations into the use of labour in the Civil Service. It seems to me that an independent commission should inquire into the use of labour in the Services. We could then speed up the rate of demobilisation still further, and very effectively reduce the amount of manpower immobilised in the defence Services without reducing our capacity to carry out our military commitments in various parts of the world.
  5.35 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: First, I would like to refer to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). He laid stress on how civilian industries fitted the right man into the right job. I think that is a very good tribute to private enterprise. From the Service point of view that has been done to a very large extent ever since the war started. Mechanisation has made tremendous strides. Men are fitted to the jobs they can do best and to the jobs to which they are best suited.
  The hon. Member also referred to the question of manpower. If we look at the White Paper and see the commitments placed on the Forces, the manpower allowed to the Services has a big job before it. I think we are all agreed that we must keep manpower down to the very minimum. Industry must take every available man. In paragraph 14 of the

  229
  White Paper we are given three and a half lines only about people who are not in the actual service of the country in uniform. What happens to them when they have done their voluntary or conscript service? We are going to have very many more men in voluntary service staying out their whole period of service. We are going to make it easier for the man to complete up to his pensionable age and our reserve therefore is getting smaller. We are going to find we will not have a trained reserve force unless the Government can say what steps they are taking to keep these men up to standards and at the same time available for civil industry from the time they have done their conscript service or a shortened voluntary service. I ask the Government to give us the information on what they propose on this line.
  We are only given two or three words in paragraph 14 about cadet forces. That is where we have the start of life in the Services. I would like to see more recognition given to the cadet formations We have a central organisation for cadets, but we find all three Services in the cadets are absolutely separate, Army, Navy and Air Force. They are given certain financial assistance, but here again it is in three separate watertight compartments and a great deal of financial assistance is therefore wasted. In connection with welfare considerations, the Minister of Education is enabled to give a quite considerable money or material advantage, but she ought at the same time to see that there is not set up a rival organisation in the youth organisation. In my part of the world it is called the "Fun and games organisation." It gets every possible advantage. It can use the schools, it has money paid for full-time instructors or leaders, and it is competing against the Cadet organisations.
  I would ask the Government to see whether they cannot put more into the cadet organisation, organise it, to start with, on a general basis covering ail three Services, with the boys in their first year doing general service and then going into the branch they wish to join. Also, cannot the Government give more consideration to the good cadet, so that he gets some advantage when he goes into the Service? An efficient cadet is a highly trained young man. He has gone through many preliminary courses in the different branches of the Service to which
  230
  he is going. He has got over the initial stage of the discipline and drill side of the Services, and he goes to his conscript service or voluntary service as a really first-class man. In nine cases out of 10 he is the fellow who will make the N.C.O. or officer, but he does not get nearly enough recognition for the work he has put in to reach that stage of proficiency. I ask the Government to consider that point, and to see whether further recognition and more coordinated and greater help cannot be given to the cadet movement.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. McGovern: Listening to this Debate on national defence, one of the things that staggers me—and I am sure that if the public outside read Hansard or the reports in the Press they will also be staggered by the thought—is that a large number of Members of this House accept the conclusion that there is to be another war. Young men have been induced from time to time to go into the Services, and their dependants to make the necessary sacrifices, in order to vanquish the enemy, and have been told that if the enemy—Germany and Japan on this occasion—wereput in their proper place, war would then be a thing of the past. A large number of Members will say, "But we must be realists. The war has taken place, new ideas and new evidences are in the field, and war does not depend only on the people of this country having a completely peace-loving outlook; it also depends on other States and their attitude towards a unified peace movement in the world."
  I am sorry that I must approach this question of national defence from a different angle from that of a large number of Members of this House, who are anxious to make a more perfect and more efficient machine in the military field, in order to conduct successful war in the future. I approach the problem from the point of view of what is to be done outside the use of force to prevent another war from taking place in the world. One is tempted to agree with a number of speakers that there must be something radically wrong with the world if nations are tempted to embark on another war, in view of the evidence we have at this moment of the development of the atomic bomb, and the various weapons that were being perfected in Germany before the war came to a close.

  231
  I would say to some Members, who try to show us this efficient machine, "Supposing before D-Day, before we invaded France, that Germany had been in a position to launch atomic bombs in the area in Southern England where there was a gathering of tremendous force, she could have wiped out that entire force which we thought of using to invade the Continent." It seems to me that with that development, in another war the people who keep in the air in aeroplanes will be safer than those on the ground, that the position is becoming reversed. In view of that development, with every nation today struggling for the mastery of the atomic bomb, and the espionage service of every State being encouraged to try to ferret out the means of making the atomic bomb, then talk of tanks and various paltry weapons of defence seems to me to be not facing the position as realists in any way.
  If there is to be another war, whom shall we be fighting? That is a question one must ask. I have a great admiration for the Foreign Secretary, and I believe that if we had to accept the old ideas, not only of war, but of national States and national defence, his policy and programme would be meeting the situation. But again, as a realist, I have even had to scrap some of my own ideas and face up to the problems of the present age. I want to know, if U.N.O. has failed as an international means of keeping the peace, if Russia is bent on enlarging her frontiers either for the natural defence of Russia or for her enlargement as an Imperialist Power, or is attempting to supplant the present order by revolutionary activity throughout the world, and to setup in every State the same type and pattern of government which there is in Russia today; how are we to divert this energy? How are we to combine this effective force in a field other than that of the destruction of States and the gaining of power by the might of the Red Army and its satellite forces?
  I want to examine this question from that point of view. I hear rumours—I do not know whether they are true or not—that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) is making a sensational speech in America tonight. In that speech, according to those who claim to know, he is to put Russia "on the spot'' and the attempt is to be made to
  232
  draw up a closer union between the United States and this country in what might be called an enlargement of this Debate, for the national defence of these countries. If we accept these theories and speculations as realities, I would say that if we had been living at the present rate of aggression and disagreement 25 years ago, there would have been another war at the present time. If that is the intended line then, as sure as we sit or stand in this House tonight, we are on the high road for that third world war. I want to ask this. As the foreign policy of this country has completely failed to bring about the alignment that a large number of people in the Labour, Socialist and trade union movements have desired, and there is no evidence of that friendship and friendly feeling between the Soviet Union and this country, who is to blame for that situation? I am not going to say that this country is entirely to blame for that situation, and I am not going to allege that Soviet Russia is entirely to blame.
  This country has thrown up a Labour and Socialist Government who have up to the moment grappled with a large number of problems in a very intelligent and energetic manner. I want, however, to suggest that something more is needed at the moment because of the events that are developing in the march of time. Greater efforts are required and greater development is absolutely essential. Why should not we at this stage try a new line? Why should not we realise that this old order of capitalism is dead, that it is rotten ripe for destruction, and only requires a real aggressive spirit on the part of the people of this country and the Government to supplant it?
  For what is national defence required? Is national defence required to defend the people of England and Wales from Scotland? Certainly not. When the Conservative Members talk in terms of national defence—and I am doing them no injustice—they think of a large Navy, Air Force and Army to defend all the outlying posts of the Empire, but they require a force to defend our Empire because it is based on injustice and the subjugation of the native people. If we were to give to all these places the right to independence and development and to encourage them along that way of self government, offering even to manufacture machinery and the essentials of life in order to develop their countries, to go

  233
  in for schemes of irrigation, transport, universities and gradual development in all these States, then one could say, "You have had a benevolent homeland which has treated all these parts of its Empire in an intelligent manner." Am I to go to the people of this country and appeal to them to accept national service and conscription for the defence of an outworn Empire, the product of a generation of Tory misrule, because the Tories when they believed in an Empire had not the intelligence to develop it on a real commercial basis?
  When one asks what defence is for, one is thrown back to impose upon the people of this country a large financial burden. We are compelled to take our manpower away from the workshop, factory, mine, and office, in order to evolve a machine that will ultimately be used either to defend their own homes in the Empire, or else to prevent the people of these countries from rising, seizing power and ruling themselves in their own way. I am not prepared to subscribe to defence of that kind. [Interruption.] When we talk of conscription in this country giving the basis of equality, let me remind the hon. Member who mentioned Australia that conscription has always been repugnant to Australia.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say I mentioned Australia because he said we had been defending an outworn Empire
  Mr. McGovern: Australia is a self-governing Dominion. Australia is not on the same basis as India.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: I never mentioned India.
  Mr. McGovern: Australia is a self-governing Dominion that can develop its own economic resources even on a Socialist basis because her sons are freely prepared in these circumstances to come either to the aid of this country or to defend their own homeland, not on the basis of national conscription but on the basis of association of free men who believe they have something worth defending. Further, in connection with national defence, I want to ask this question. It is the crux of the position, and the basis of a next war, if it should come. Why should not the first Labour Government in this country, with its tremendous Parliamentary majority, its tremendous
  234
  support from the country, and the great hope of millions of human beings who have placed their faith in this Government, make a new approach? Why should not we say to Soviet Russia, and to the States that accept the basis of Soviet Russia, "Let us come together— not only we, but our Empire. We are prepared to come and discuss with you ways and means of pooling the whole of our resources, the development of an economic machine for the feeding and clothing and education of our populations. "Why should we not say that to Stalin? I believe the more we bring these people into the open to discuss things, the more one can modify one's outlook and attitude towards other countries. Other countries, if they saw there was no great danger from this country in the event of another struggle taking place, would do the same. Why should we not gather our resources and pool them for development? Belgium, France and Sweden and all these other nations are on the march towards the Socialist goal. Let us issue a clarion cry to all men and women of good will and all Governments who desire to wipe out that old shifting sand foundation of capitalism and come to the new world. Humanity is waiting for this new world at present. Instead of getting down on our knees to the financial capital octopus of America, pleading for loans, we should be taking stock of the whole of our resources in common with the other countries and developing a machine that would in the end undermine the capitalist conditions of America by the example that we have been able to set to the people of America. We should show them that instead of struggling, instead of the incentive of private gain, the incentive of the public wellbeing of the community make a greater appeal to men and women all over the world.
  I have condemned the actions of Soviet Russia as much as any man in this country but, knowing the difficulties—and I loathe the power of the concentration camp, the prison cell, the political murder —I am a realist. I understand that there can be arguments put forward for the retention of that power in the hands of the few during the time when they themselves are marching into a world crisis. Let us get back on that basis and call a world conference on the basis of the acceptance of public ownership of the means of life in all these countries, offering to pool our

  235
  quota and our resources. I am satisfied that, if that approach is put forward in a proper way, and accepted, there is going to be a great change and a diversion of this propaganda from the field of war, into the field of peace, and reconstruction for the good of humanity.
  What is the answer? The answer that some people give is that we must gather together all the remaining forces that are prepared to maintain what is called democratic government, which means democratic capitalism and exploitation. Most of the people who go about shouting for the retention of democracy have themselves stood, in their own Empire, for the most loathsome things that democracy has ever practised, yet they go on making these demands for the retention of capitalist democracy. Democracy has never really existed in the world. Even during the Election, the whole of the Press was in the hands of the few and was utilised against the many, with all its distortion and tearing things from their context, and, therefore, this question of national defence is bound up with the question of the future of mankind. Does anybody believe that, if America and this country got together and emerged into a field of possible war, there would be a war? If there was an attempt, say, to have a war with Soviet Russia in five years' time, all that would happen would be internal civil war, in every capitalist country in the world because the working classes would not stand for such a war. Therefore, it would mean that, if they entered that field of war, the cycle that was not completed either in the last war or in this one—the cycle of Socialist revolution—would be completed in that situation, and the old order would die amidst the struggles of the common people to resist war being made on the Soviet Union.
  In these circumstances, I content myself with that plea to this House and the country. Let us get that new approach; let us forget all the things that have happened in Soviet Russia and in this country and our Empire in the past. Let us see if we can get that new approach, and I am satisfied that, if this new approach is not on the basis of preparation for a future war, but is made to see what we can do to avoid war, to show confidence that we mean business and mean to liquidate capitalism throughout the world, then we shall get from every man and
  236
  woman in the world service of every kind. They would realise that we were bent on creating a new order to inspire human beings to rise to greater heights and they would do and dare and die in the service of humanity. I appeal for such a conference to be held, on the basis of the acceptance of the policy of social reconstruction by the common ownership of the entire means of life.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Eden: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, with care and interest, and, so far as I understood the proposal at the end of his speech, it was that a conference should be summoned of States, excluding the United States—
  Mr. McGovern indicated dissent.
  Mr. Eden: I thought they were not to be invited.
  Mr. McGovern: I said that, instead of going down on our knees for a loan, we should make this clarion call.
  Mr. Eden: I thought the hon. Gentleman said that they would have to be Socialist States, or they would not be invited. I do not think he is likely to be very successful if he tells them beforehand that they must be Socialist States. I do not think that is the realism, of which the hon. Gentleman spoke just now. The hon. Gentleman also said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was going to make a speech this evening, in which he was going to put Russia on the spot. I do not know from where he got that information. I certainly have not heard anything of the kind from my right hon. Friend, and, may I add, I do not believe it for one single moment. If the hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford made on the night when Russia was attacked and to a number of other speeches, and to events since, he would know that there is nothing in which my right hon. Friend is more sincere—and I think I can claim to know him in these matters—than in his regard for good relations with the Soviet Union. Frankly, I think it is the desire of almost everybody in this country, and if it has not been realised, we all regret it profoundly. I listened to the solution put forward by the hon. Gentleman and I

  237
  do not really think it will achieve the object he has at heart.
  There is one other matter to which I wish to refer before I come to the White Paper, which has been neglected for quite a long time. I want to say something in reply to the hon. Gentleman on the subject of Empire. I really do not understand his reference to an "outworn Empire ". To what does the hon. Gentleman refer? Obviously, not to our self-governing Dominions, because he corrected my hon. Friend about Australia. I think our Dominions are the only examples in the history of the world of the successful development of experiments of this kind, and it is something of which everyone concerned has reason to be proud. If the nations of the world could contrive so to arrange their affairs as we within our Empire have managed to arrange ours, we should be in a very much better position than we are at the present time. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman means India. Is it to India that we ought to give liberty? What is the right hon. Gentleman, with his colleagues in the Government, about to do? He is going out to try to see whether the policy laid down when the President of the Board of Trade went to India, with the full support of the Coalition Government, can be put into effect; and he and his colleagues have our best wishes in that attempt to assist India so that she can have her independence. Again, I do not see what there is of "appalling tyranny" in that, or why we should talk of an "outworn Empire. "I am bound to say that there are other parts of the world where I would like to see as much freedom as the freedom which the Government are trying to give to India. I do not like that phrase "outworn Empire ", because there are people who would misunderstand it. What about the people of Malta, and the magnificent contribution they made to us? Are they to be stigmatised as part of an "outworn Empire ", or does the hon. Gentleman think they would have been happier if Mussolini had collared them?
  I want to make another observation to the hon. Gentleman. He said there is something wrong with the world. There is, unhappily, a very great deal wrong with the world, and it is a wrong which, however much we may try individually, I am afraid, by our own efforts, we shall
  238
  not be able to set right. But it is our duty to try to make our contribution in that sphere, and mine this evening is an attempt to make some contribution on the basis of the White Paper.
  I think the House feels a sense of regret that during this examination of the White Paper my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford is not here to make a contribution from the depths of his experience, wider and richer than is possessed by any one of us. Those of us who are here will simply have to do our best, conscious that it falls short of the contribution that he could have made. I well remember the continuing interest of the present Prime Minister in these defence matters over a very long period of years. When he was Leader of the Opposition he made several important contributions to Debates such as these. I do not think he has entirely lost his interest in the Services since the days of the South Lancashire Regiment and the Gallipoli campaign, but he and I, like my hon. and gallant Friend behind me—the three of us who have spoken in these Debates—are, by comparison with the glittering band of hon. and gallant Members in all parts of the House, only hoary relics of the pre-atomic age. We must speak with a corresponding discretion in the presence of those whose experience is much more recent. It is also true that, when in Opposition, the Prime Minister frequently asked for Debates such as these Now that he is the head of the Government, he has granted us this defence Debate. That is very satisfactory, and I hope that the practice will be repeated in future years. I must, however, confess that the material which has been put before us to enable us to conduct this Debate is distinctly scanty, and perhaps accounts for the fact that the Debate has been somewhat scrappy in character, with occasional passages which appear to belong to an Army Estimates Debate and others which might well belong to a Debate upon foreign affairs. I hope that, when next we are invited to a similar discussion, the Government will try to provide material of a somewhat more substantial character than is before us today.
  What has really happened is that the Government, in their generosity in giving time—which is very unusual in the Leader of the House in these days—have offered us two days to discuss what is very thin gruel indeed In fact, when I noted the

  239
  headings of this White Paper and the contents beneath the headings, I thought it was rather like the lists of food which upset my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) so much. They looked very substantial on the menu, but when you got them on the plate they were not so good. This document, if I may say so with respect and not so much in criticism as by way of fair comment, is not a "Statement relating to Defence," in the main, but a progress report on demobilisation.
  First then let me say a few words on the demobilisation position. Many hon. Members have pointed to the figure of 1,900,000 now set up as the target for 30th June, as a disappointing figure. I agree with that sense of disappointment, though I would also say that the figure of 1,100,000 for December is, in the present circumstances of the world, a reasonable figure. It may even prove an optimistic one. I am not prepared to go into the questions raised by some hon. Members about enlistment in the voluntary Army, the Territorial Army and so forth. We may have observations to make on the subject in the course of the Army Estimates Debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to say something about the suggestions that have come from several quarters of the House regarding the Colonial Forces and particularly the East and West African Forces. I think all of us agree in paying a tribute to the remarkable record of those Forces in the war, and it would seem reasonable that use should be made of them, as far as possible, in the immediate and more difficult years.
  The White Paper and the Prime Minister's speech yesterday have given an account of the obligations which, in the Government's view, we are called upon to fulfil. Of course, that is the whole case for the existence of this White Paper and the reason why we are having the Debate at all. I would like to make clear our attitude on these obligations. We admit that those obligations exist. We support the Government in seeking to fulfil them. We also consider that the Government must have adequate forces in their continuing task of fulfilling those obligations. We also agree with the White Paper that to abandon our responsibilities in many parts of the world
  240
  would not give the liberty which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway wants, but would result in anarchy and chaos. Therefore, we agree with the words of the White Paper that to do so would be to
  " throw away the fruits of victory, and to betray those who had fought and died in the common cause."
  With that we are all in agreement. I notice the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) opposite. I did not expect him to be in agreement.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: No. I want to know about the fruits.
  Sir. Eden: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman feels about it, but I should have thought it would be pretty grim to contemplate what would have happened if the events of 1940 had fallen out differently. Most of us, while recognising his absolute sincerity, would feel, without any bombast, that we would rather be dead than under Hitler's rule. That is putting rather simply what happened. Whether we shall make use of the advantages of victory—not "advantages" so much as "conditions" that victory has brought—is another and a grimmer matter. That there is deep thankfulness for what we have escaped surely there cannot be any doubt. I am sorry to have digressed. I come back now to the White Paper.
  What we criticise is the figure of 1,900,000 for June. It seems too high in relation to the figure for December. I should have thought that the figure which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford gave for March, and which right hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember was 1,550,000, should be attainable by the end of June. Many speeches have been made in all parts of the House making rather the same plea as I am making now. The Prime Minister interrupted yesterday when my right hon. Friend was urging that point, and he said that it would not be possible in those circumstances to keep the units up to strength, or, indeed, effective units at all if we went too fast between now and the end of June. That is a matter on which one would like to have technical advice, but nobody knows better than the First Lord of the Admiralty, because he has to do it often, that sometimes decisions have to be taken which are not entirely consonant with technical advice. Sometimes

  241
  you cannot give the Services all that they are convinced they ought to have. Therefore I hope that when the Minister speaks tonight he will give us a fuller explanation than has yet been given why it is not possible to get below 1,900,000 by the end of June. I must remind the House what we arc doing. It is not a question whether it would be desirable or undesirable. It is that we must get a balance of alternatives. We discussed the other day in this House the manpower situation in our industries. All of that is known to every hon. Member. I therefore urge the Government to make a further examination of the position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford did not lightly put before the House the figure 1,500,000 for March. We ought to have an explanation why that figure cannot be reached by the end of June.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful and constructive. Perhaps he would allow me to put a point to him in the hope that he can offer some assistance. He said that the figure of 1,100,000 men for the end of December was probably reasonable, and he added that he thought that figure might even be optimistic. He must know, as the White Paper says, that we shall have reduced by more than 75 per cent. the total number of people in the Forces. How, in that time, is he going to keep that force in balanced unite, and arrange in between for perhaps a million postings in each of the Services to and fro, and still have the properly trained men in every one of the different technical cadres and in every one of His Majesty's ships?
  Mr. Eden: I agree that it is an immensely difficult problem; I do not attempt to deny that. But my right hon. Friend did visualise 1,500,000 by March, and he thought the number could be reduced to 1,000,000. My criticism is that I would have thought it possible, if we are going to reduce the number to 1,100,000 by the end of the year, to get the figure lower than 1,900,000 by the end of June. If it is not possible, I would be grateful for anything the right hon. Gentleman can tell us when he is replying in explanation of why it is not. Any examples he can give us will, of course, be of interest to the House.
  242
  My next point is also with regard to demobilisation, and once again I urge the Government to tell us, at the earliest possible date, the length of service for which these young men will be called up. I do not know what the period will be, but the Prime Minister told us yesterday that we shall have that information as soon as possible. That is obviously desirable, but it would help us—and, I would have thought, the people of this country also —if the right hon. Gentleman could give us any indication of how long it will be before this announcement is made. Can he tell us, for instance, whether three months from now he will be able to tell the House and the country the period for which these young men will be called up? The sooner the Government can make the announcement, the fairer it will be for the young men and the better it will be for the country and the Services in the long run.
  Paragraph 6 of the White Paper refers to the present situation, and says:
  " This is not the time to come to decisions about the eventual shape of our postwar Forces."
  The reason given for that is that great strides are being made in the realm of science. That is quite true, but I would observe that those great strides are not going to stop, and it is essential that we should keep fully up to date in developments. Therefore, in relation to that, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, I would like to have his assurance that this work of scientific research and development is continuing with the same energy and concentration as in the war years, and that it is not being starved either by the Treasury or for lack of the necessary technical help. My second observation concerns a later sentence in this paragraph which says:-
  " Time is wanted for the full effects of the startling developments to be assessed."
  I might say that one has often heard before, in departmental language, that time is wanted in which to come to a decision, and I must express to the right hon. Gentleman a doubt as to whether time will ever be available, because we are not dealing with a static situation but with a developing situation in the realm of science, and I do not think the Government will find themselves much better placed three or six months from now for making their decision about the future organisation of our Forces. They

  243
  will, perhaps, be better placed in relation to the existing situation, but there will be new factors to deal with as matters develop and they may find it no easier than they do now. Therefore, I advise the earliest possible decision upon that matter.
  As regards the United Nations organisation, I agree with what is in the White Paper, and I have nothing more to say on that point except to say that, however rapidly or otherwise, and however successfully, as we hope, this organisation gathers strength, there will still be need for the closest collaboration between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Governments of the Dominions on the subject of defence. I presume that is one of the subjects which the Prime Ministers of the British Commonwealth are coming here to discuss in the near future. Paragraph 9 (g) contains rather a curious phrase to which I would like to draw attention. It says about the maintenance of internal security:
  " It has already proved possible to reduce many of our garrisons to the peace time scale."
  I presume that does not refer to the pre-1939 scale, because there certainly ought to be a new peacetime scale. Although it may be unintentional, this smacks a little of some of those phrases we sometimes used to hear, and it may give the impression that we are going back to the establishment of the status quo. Perhaps that is not the Government's intention, but I would like it cleared up.
  I have two other comments of a general nature. First, I would like to add my tribute to those which have already been paid by the Prime Minister and others, to the organisation and leadership of our Armed Forces in the war. I know a little bit from my memories of the War Office in 1940, of the low level to which, in a technical sense—not in the sense of morale, because that never did happen at any time—we had then fallen. I think it is a feat which can have few parallels in the history of the nations, that in so short a time so much was achieved in the creation of a closely integrated, well equipped and brilliantly led striking force. I think, in future, historians will have some commendation for that. The other general comment I have to make
  244
  is in relation to the general behaviour of our troops in areas of occupation, a matter in which not only our troops themselves but every Member of this House and every citizen of the Empire should take pride. When I was at. the Foreign Office, over and over again tributes came, as I have no doubt the present Foreign Secretary is aware, from foreign ambassadors at the Court of St. James, telling us of the influence which the behaviour of our Forces had had, wherever they had been. Therefore, I repeat what has been said before, that our Forces have ever been our best ambassadors and they are our best ambassadors today. I have no doubt that the young men, when they go to take the place of the older ones, will want to play their part in maintaining that wonderful reputation.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the figures in paragraph 20 of the White Paper. So far as one can judge —it is difficult to judge when the figures are not broken down—the figure for production of £230 million is large, and I would be grateful if we could have an explanation. There is another figure in the same table which is more difficult to assess, and that is the figure of £181 million for "miscellaneous." I do not want to be hypercritical, but I think when the figure of £181 million for "miscellaneous "is presented, it is a pretty tall order, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can give us a little information as to what that miscellaneous total represents. It is the largest miscellany I have ever seen presented to this House.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: There will be a much more detailed estimate.
  Mr. Eden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to detain the House for a few moments in order to say something about the higher defence organisation to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday, because that is, perhaps, the most important of the decisions which immediately await the Government. It is the decision set out in paragraph 7 of the White Paper. I would like to make a brief comment or two, because for five years of the war I was, with the Prime Minister and other of my colleagues, a member of the Defence Committee. I would like to join with him in paying my tribute to the working of that committee and to the working of the organisations that fed that committee.

  245
  The old Committee of Imperial Defence, which is known to many Ministers and ex-Ministers in the House, began as far back as 1904 as a result of a report presented by Lord Esher It is not uninteresting to note the reasons why the Committee was set up. There is a quite short passage in the report which seems to be absolutely true today:
  "The British Empire is pre-eminently a great naval and Colonial power. There are, nevertheless, no means for co-ordinating de fence problems or for dealing with them as a whole We are driven to the conclusion that no measure of War Office reform will avail unless it is associated with provision for obtaining and co-ordinating for the use of the Cabinet all the information and the expert advice required for the shaping of national policy in war and for determining the necessary preparations in peace."
  It is not uninteresting to note that 40 years ago that was the task as it was then seen; not very far different from the task as it confronts us today. However, there are some differences. I apologise to the House for going into a little detail, but I think these matters are of some importance, and our opportunities to discuss them are very rare.
  The first difference is that the Committee of Imperial Defence, I think I am right in saying, was essentially a co-ordinating and advising body. It was not a body authorised to take decisions. The decisions had to be referred in all cases to the Cabinet. The second point is that the Committee was a very large body relative to oar Defence Committee as it existed in this last war. The Committee of Imperial Defence consisted of as many as 15 Ministers, I think. That is a very large body. I am sure that we were much better off under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford with our smaller body. The right hon. Gentleman will remember there were three other Members of the War Cabinet besides the Prime Minister, three Service Ministers, three Chiefs of Staff and General Is may, making a total of 11, apart from anybody specially called in. My submission would be that that is a quite large enough number for efficient working. I hope the Government will hold to that and not allow themselves to be carried back into the more swollen company of the old Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Another distinction, of which I would like to remind the House, is that the Committee of Imperial Defence was fed
  246
  by much smaller sub-committees which had very much less scope than had the committees that fed the Defence Committee in this last war. For instance, to give one example, right up to the out-break of war I think I am right in saying the Joint Planning Staff consisted" of representatives of the three Services as directors of planning, but they still each worked in their own Service Ministry. There was no inter-Service staff housed in one place such as now exists. Exactly the same system applied to the intelligence staff, which is not a good idea at all. If there is anything that ought to be closely integrated within the Government it is intelligence. It is fantastic that various Service Departments and the Foreign Office should ever be pursuing their own line of intelligence with their own powers without coordination. In the Committee of Imperial Defence there was no sub-committee for administration. In all those things giant strides have been made. I think in summing up it would be fair to say the Committee of imperial Defence was heavier on top and lighter below than the Defence Committee.
  If the House would bear with me I would like to say a word or two about the organisation of the Defence Committee, and why I hope the Government will not make any fundamental changes, at least not without very careful examination. First, I would like to refer to the committees which fed the Defence Committee. The main one was, of course, first and foremost, the Chiefs of Staff Committee. I think all hon. Members who had experience of the work of that committee would join with me in saying that no praise was too nigh for the men who represented the Services on that committee and for the work they did throughout the war. Some of them literally gave their lives by overwork on that committee. Under them there were a number of sub-committees, all of them inter-Service committees, planning, intelligence—to which I referred just now—technical warfare, and the Deputy Chiefs of Staff, who in their turn controlled a sub-committee for atomic weapons and for the exchange of technical information. In addition to that, there was the administrative side, principally administrative officers, also an inter-Service body on what might be called an Army Council level, or the equivalent in the Admiralty

  247
  and Air Ministry, and they had under them joint administrative planners and a committee of supply and maintenance by air, and one for coordinating freight.
  I mention those things to show the House how closely integrated this work was and to emphasise this important factor, that in each of these committees and sub-committees—there were many others which I have not enumerated—in all of them the Services were represented and worked together as a whole. That is an invaluable gain which must not on any account be lost. Therefore, I say to the Government that what I would like them to do is to make up their minds that what was gained during the war by this joint work of the Services will be consolidated now; to see that there is no danger of going back, of losing this close inter-Service collaboration which has been worked out. Then, having taken that decision other decisions may flow from it, to which they may wish to give more thought. As the war has progressed the trend has been for a growth of these inter-Service staffs, especially on the more important matters of policy. There has been a gradual increase in the scope of the work which these inter-Service staffs have done. That is all to the good.
  My conclusion on all this is that what has been gained should certainly be held, and I hope the Government will come to a decision in this sense. I cannot see why they should not come to a decision in that sense now. I do not quite understand the need for more delay and more examination that far. Moreover, I should imagine that in order to ensure that all three Services are fully co-ordinated in the future, this gradual evolution towards the fullest three Services' collaboration will go on and grow even now after the war. I should have imagined also that subjects like, for instance, training and design, and, perhaps, the production of weapons, might well be included amongst those dealt with by these inter-Service committees. That far I would go now, but I would not myself be willing to go beyond that, without at any rate some technical advice. I would not like to say how far beyond that the tendency-should continue. That, I imagine, is a problem which the Government have got to face, how far beyond the point I have mentioned—which is in advance of where
  248
  we are now—the integration of the Services can be continued. I do ask them to give their decision early.
  I have one other comment to make on organisation which has, I think, some significance. Running through all these committees which I have tried to describe to the House is a very close liaison with the other important Government Departments whose collaboration is indispensable, such as the Foreign Office, the Ministry of War Transport, which was needed at every turn, the Ministry of Aircraft Production and many others. All the Departments nominate their representatives on these committees and subcommittees. I give one example to the House, the Joint Intelligence Committee, which gave us some extremely valuable appreciations at different points in the war. It was an inter-Service Committee presided over by a Foreign Office chairman who is now, in point of fact, His Majesty's Ambassador in Warsaw. That is an example of how intelligence should be worked out together, and presented as a considered whole, to the Government for their guidance.
  All this liaison had this very important result, if 1 may carry the House a little further into the workings of the machine as I understood it. It meant that when a document came up, either to the Chiefs of Staffs Committee or even to the Defence Committee, that document had been considered, not only by the Service officers, but by the interested Departments at a much lower stage, because it is of no use just co-ordinating your policy at the top level unless it has been co-ordinated the whole way up I heard what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the last war, and I really think we did much better in that respect this time, and did have that integration all the way up. Another result was that when the issue came to the Chiefs of Staff or to the Defence Committee, it was possible for the Defence Committee to take its decision, even though it was composed of only a small number of persons, because we knew that the Departments concerned had been consulted at every stage while the policy was being worked out. Of course there were occasions when one or another Department, perhaps the Ministry of War Transport or some other, had some issue to raise and did not agree with the policy. Then, of course, that

  249
  could be put either to the Chiefs of Staff or, if need be, to the Defence Committee itself.
  I have gone into all this detail, I am afraid at rather more length than I should, because it seems to me that what was gained then—not all as a result of deliberate policy, sometimes by experience and even by accident—must on no account be lost now. I have therefore explained, so far as I can recollect—I hope accurately—what the system was, and I ask the Government to hold on to that system, in which I know the right hon. Gentleman himself had full confidence. I hope he will tell us as soon as possible what their decision of that point is.
  I have one other observation to make before I sum up, and that is that this system will work all the better if the Minister of Defence is also the Prime Minister. I know that in peace time it is a very balanced argument as to whether it is sound policy or not, but I can only give my experience, and that is that I think it is to the national advantage that the Prime Minister should also be Minister of Defence. One fully understands the immense burdens a Prime Minister carries, which in peace time are even of a more diverse character, if not more urgent, than in war. On the other hand, I have seen occasions when the Prime Minister was not the active head of the old C.I.D., and there is not the slightest doubt that you did not then get the authority behind a decision that you get when the Prime Minister himself presides. In my view, therefore, the balance of argument still lies in favour of the Prime Minister being the Chairman of the Defence Committee now, as in the past.
  I have ranged rather widely in this discussion, and in conclusion I would put this point to the Government. We are not blaming them because there is not more in this White Paper, we understand the difficulties, and I hope the House will be given other opportunities for discussions such as this whenever the time is ripe. When those opportunities are given, I hope the Government will do everything they can to give us the fullest possible information, because it is really extremely difficult for anybody who is not inside the mind of the Government to make any intelligent comment at all on such very scarce and scrappy figures as there are
  250
  here. I would therefore say to the right hon. Gentleman that anything he can do tonight to answer the questions which have been asked—it is not our universal experience to have our questions answered —and also to give any further information and comment he feels like giving from his own very wide knowledge and experience in these matters, will be very much appreciated.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: I should like to follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman who pointed out that we are not taking part in a foreign affairs Debate, and I will try to stick closely to the White Paper, because I agree with him that there are many things in it which need clarifying if we are to come to a good judgment of our present position. Nevertheless, it must be agreed that among the many important things said by the Prime Minister, as Minister of Defence, was the statement that the Armed Forces are an expression of policy. If it is true that the Armed Forces are an expression of policy, it is rather difficult to understand why the very large forces suggested in this White Paper are necessary, if our foreign policy is such as we believe it to be. It is in fact true that war between ourselves and the United States of America is unthinkable. If it is also true that we have not only a 20-year treaty of friendship with the U.S.S.R. but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has said, but are asking them for a 50-year treaty of friendship, it becomes difficult to understand why the large forces envisaged in the White Paper are necessary, and why the suggestions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should have conscription are also necessary.
  I want to ask about one or two points in the White Paper, because they seem to indicate that it will not be necessary for a long time to have such large forces of men and women taken out of the field of production at a time when production is the greatest and most important necessity to be put before this House. There are not only the important and interesting points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), but one or two others which have struck me as being extremely hopeful and optimistic for the future, but about which we have been told very little. I

  251
  want to ask for very much more clarification of paragraph 7, some parts of paragraph 9, and the end of paragraph 15. Paragraph 7 of the White Paper states that we expect very soon to conclude through the United Nations an agreement under Article 43 of the Charter. Those of us who have been interested in the work of the United Nations have always understood that one of the most important means of defence in the future would be the defence provided by the United Nations. We want to know whether we are both to make a contribution to the teeth—as they are sometimes called—of the United Nations organisation, and also to have a standing Army of our own. Are we to have both those things or are we, as has been suggested on all sides of the House, to merge some part of our sovereignty into the United Nations organisation? I should have thought that, if we are to do that, perhaps the very best way of doing it would be to make one single contribution to that great police force, instead of both having a police force and fighting the burglars ourselves in our own country. We need a clarification on that point.
  I would also like to say a word about commitments, because here again I should have thought that the commitments as set out in the White Paper, with one exception, are reasonable. I should have thought that some of these commitments, particularly under headings (b) to (g) in the White Paper could be got rid of in a reasonably short period of time. It is certain that, with the exception of those under (a), the countries will make much greater progress towards normality when the occupying troops are withdrawn; Austria, for instance, and particularly Italy. Some of us have a lively recollection of hearing representatives from Italy talk to us in a room upstairs, and of the very strong impression that they left upon us that that country would settle down to normality when the occupying troops are withdrawn.
  But there is the hard and difficult core in these commitments as set out in the White Paper, and that is the occupation of Germany. I think there is no one in this House who does not feel uneasy and rather unhappy about the whole situation there. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington
  252
  has said a great deal about the importance of integration, about the importance and wisdom of having complete consultation at every point. It seems to many of us that, as far as Germany is concerned, the consultation which, he said, was in a marvellous state during the progress of the war, has somehow or another broken down, and that instead of our having complete knowledge and agreement about what is going on and happening there, there has somehow arisen a kind of childish competition— perhaps I had better not call it that— some kind of competition as to who is to do the best with the Germans. I cannot remember exactly who it was, but someone the other day—I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) —said that if we were not very careful Germany would become the petted courtesan.
  The test of conquest is pacification. The greatest conquerors are the greatest pacifiers. We ought to be achieving something as far as Germany is concerned in the pooling of food resources; in the pooling of our views on how politics should proceed in the various zones; in the pooling of views about de-Nazification; about trade unions; about all these things. One zone ought not to be trying to get the better of another. Only if we have consultation and agreement between the zones, are we going to have the conditions in Germany that we need. One other point about our occupying forces that I want to make is this. I should have thought it very much better to have a highly mechanised, swiftly striking force in the occupied countries than to have a widely spread out force, with numbers of men carrying rifles at every street corner, reminding the defeated people all the time of their presence. I should think it would be very much better psychologically, and from the point of view of peace, to have, if we can, as soon as possible, a highly mechanised, highly mobile, quickly striking force in Germany.
  So far as the rest of our commitments are concerned, there is room for optimism, and not for the pessimism with which some have spoken. As regards India and Egypt, the time is coming when we shall have large forces freed from those countries. We are not expected to sit much longer on the necks of those peoples. They have told us in no uncertain terms that they want to be rid of us. Those

  253
  countries will look after themselves, and we shall have large forces freed. If we can give India her freedom, which is agreed in all parts of the House—[Hon. Members: "Is it?"] Let us put it at a lower point then. If we hark back to what is sometimes called the Cripps plan, which is somewhat out of date now, we should regard it as making India, a self-governing Dominion.
  A self-governing Dominion can provide its own forces. Self-governing Dominions can look after themselves and look after their lines of communications, and when India arrives at that stage we shall certainly have a great number of our own forces freed. I turn to the next point about which I wish to speak. I think it is Section V of the White Paper which deals with the question of supply and equipment. Whatever department we choose—perhaps it may be the D.I.S.R., which has done excellent work in the war, and about which I know rather more than about others because my husband was engaged in that department —but I hope that whatever department is to be concerned with the question of research, will be expanded as rapidly as possible. Whatever department is engaged upon this research, I hope, will also be engaged upon designs for the technique of living as well upon designs for the technique of death. But I ask that the department should be developed as rapidly as possible.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that we do not all know what is in the mind of the Government. But if there is as much there, as we hope is there, if many of these things come forward in the way we hope they will, surely we can be more generous over this question of demobilisation. I should feel I had failed to do my duty by my constituents, many of them young men who send me letters from all parts of the world, if I did not ask the Government to look at this question again. I see no possible reason why we cannot get over the acute disappointment felt by these men, some of whom have been in the Armed Forces over six years. I can see no reason why we could not, at least, continue demobilisation until mid Summer at the rate of 100,000 a week. If we can bring the figure down to the figure suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), to 1,600,000, or to the
  254
  figure of 1,500,000, or even to the figure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington on the basis of the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill), which is half way between the two, surely we ought to do so at this moment when it is so necessary to bring these men back into production.
  The Prime Minister said that one of the reasons why he could not do it was because it would spoil the pattern, or something of that kind. 1 had the utmost sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) when he said that things had to be terribly stretched at home, so why should they not be a bit stretched as regards the Army? The womenfolk of this country have painted such a bright picture of conditions here to the men in the Army —because they have not wanted to worry them—that now that the men are coming home, and finding things are not laid on for them as they were laid on for them in the Army, there is a great deal of disquietude. I am sure it would do the men in the Forces no harm if things were a bit stretched for them, as they are for the people at home. I would like the regimental sergeant majors and the company sergeant majors to come home—it would please them—and have promotion of corporals and lance-corporals—which would please them as well. Why cannot we have promotion in the Army? Why-have we always to rely on the men who served the officers so faithfully and took the responsibility off their shoulders as the sergeant majors did? Let us learn to rely on new men. That had to be done in offices and works during the war, and so why should it not be practised now?
  Having complimented the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden on one point, I certainly cannot follow him on another point which he made. I think that he will learn when he reads Hansard that it was a very large assumption on his part if he thought that conscription in peacetime was going to be accepted by a large number of hon. Members on this side of the House. He will learn very differently from the speeches that have been made. I am in entire agreement with the view that, for some time, at least, until we have released from the Forces the men who have been there for so long. we must have conscription. But I should like to think that in these

  255
  days we can find some kind of alternative; and that we can offer either agriculture or military service to the men who are being called up. I am convinced that a very large number of men would prefer the open field to the barrack square and the whistle of the blackbird to the bark of the sergeant major. If that cannot come yet, we are prepared, in these critical times, to put up with conscription.
  Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I think that something has come up about conscription which should be made clear. The Government yesterday, in a statement by the Prime Minister, said that there would have to be conscription for some time. He gave no indication that it might not be for a very long time. It would have been possible for the Opposition to make capital out of that, and it would have been very easy for them to say, "Do away with conscription right away."
  Hon. Members. Speech.
  Mrs. Manning: I am not quite so simple as the hon. Gentleman seems to think. I do not believe that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to make things easy for the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden, questioned from these benches, reiterated that it was the policy of the Opposition that there should be conscription. I do not want to enter into a long diatribe on that. There have been excellent speeches made on the whole question. I would like, however, to say one thing in regard to the right hon. Gentleman, although he is not present. He and other hon. Members have put forward arguments which they think will appeal to this side of the House, on the question of conscription. The most appealing argument put forward is that conscription will mix up the classes, and make it easier for them to understand one another. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden that he had it in his power to enable that mixing up to take place at a much earlier age than 18. I would advise him, concerning the educational system of this country that if he would agree to work with us, and throw the public schools and private preparatory schools into the ordinary State education system we would begin to get that
  256
  mixing up at a very much earlier age. A complete State system of education during the years of early adolescence is the best way of preventing that stratification which he himself seems to think is unwise at the age of 18. I think that it is unwise at the age of 11 plus, and I think he will understand me when I use that term.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) said last night that he had an uneasy suspicion that people sometimes made speeches that were originally devised for other occasions I will not deny that what I am going to say now, although it is relevant to the subject of defence, was originally devised for an occasion when I was not so fortunate as to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker. It was really devised for the manpower Debate—when everyone talked about manpower only, except the Lord President of the Council who referred to manpower and womanpower. I want to raise the question of the women in the Forces, particularly the married women. I do so because, in his speech on manpower, and in his very fine speech on the wireless the other night, the Prime Minister made the point that something like 970,000 people had gone out of production between 1945 and 1946. He mentioned particularly married women and old men We cannot, I think, bring the old men back into production, but the Government do enable industry and the educational system to absorb a certain number of married women, and it is urged that they should be absorbed in a part-time capacity. I can think of no better way of absorbing women in a part-time capacity than in the defence Services. During the war, it was a common thing for married women to do clerical work and to serve in the officers' messes on a part-time basis.
  I could think of two ways in which we could absorb a very large number of married women in the defence forces, if we were willing to do so. I am not asking the Government to give an answer about this tonight, but I ask them to consider it as a possibility. There are camps all over the country, and it would be easy in the clerical, accountancy, and cooking branches to absorb married women who could only give part-time service. If that could be done in the difficult days of the war, there is not the slightest reason why it should not be done in peacetime. Even when men are

  257
  abroad and living with their wives in married quarters, there are excellent opportunities for utilising the services of married women in the work of the camps, particularly in the directions which I have mentioned. The Government cannot press industry, and the educational services particularly, to take married women on a part-time basis, if they are not prepared to do anything about it themselves. There is much in the White Paper that is good, and much that gives promise for the future, as far as the scaling down of the defence forces is concerned. I hope that whoever winds up for the Government tonight will be able to give us some clarification of the points raised in all parts of the House, so that we may understand a little better the basis of the figures in the White Paper.
  7.10 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Salter: I am sure the hon. Lady, the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) will forgive me if I do not discuss the very interesting speech which we have just listened to, although as a University representative I was tempted to do so by her remarks about education, and we were all very much intrigued by her suggestion that one reason for quicker demobilisation was that it would do the men in the Forces good to learn what real hardship is at home.
  I think as we get to the end of this two-day Debate we all feel we have not had a real Debate on the defence system of this country. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said, what we have had is rather a Debate on demobilisation and recruitment in the year 1946. That was inevitable in view of the limitations of the White Paper, which says quite frankly that the Government cannot now decide what is to be the eventual shape of our postwar forces; and the Prime Minister was obviously correct when he described the White Paper as a stop gap. There is little I wish to contribute on this immediate problem of demobilisation in 1946. I only want to say that I very cordially agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) said yesterday in regard to the great importance of the universities and the students learning as soon as possible what is going to be the term for which the students are to
  258
  be called up. It will certainly also be a very great advantage if, as he suggested, some elasticity is allowed in the date of calling up so that students at a university may be able to continue their courses, and not have them interrupted half way through. However, I will not pursue this point especially as the Secretary of State for War has indicated that he thought it would be more appropriate on the Army Estimates a little later
  The White Paper and the Prime Minister gave reasons why the Government could not now put before the House a real defence plan. They made, for example, a glancing reference to new weapons, and in particular the atomic bomb. It is indeed true that it must be extremely difficult to make anything like a comprehensive defence plan until there has been a real evaluation of the factor of the atomic weapon. If atomic bombs are to be among the weapons in the arsenals of competitive States defence plans will be revolutionised. What will be the effect on the organisation of armies? Can armed forces be concentrated, and if not, what effect will that have on the whole system of armies? What will be the effect on navies? Can battleships exist if atomic weapons are used? And if there is added to atomic bombs a big development in stratosphere rockets, by which bombs may be conveyed, it is difficult to see even that the present bombing aeroplane will retain its position in any kind of defence system. I can well understand therefore at this moment that the mind of the Government and of their advisers are concentrated, apart from the immediate problem of demobilisation, upon the prospective work of the Commission which has been set up by U.N.O. to consider atomic weapons and also upon the great experiment by the American authorities which is to take place in rather less than two months near the Marshalls, and that in the meantime they feel that anything put forward must be very provisional and tentative. In these circumstances the White Paper only in fact really glances once or twice at the longer term defence problem of this country. But there are references in two places. In the last paragraph there Is a reference to Commonwealth defence and there is also a reference to the development of the general higher defence organisation. On

  259
  both these matters the Government promise a report later on. I wish to say just a few words on each of these.
  With regard to Commonwealth defence, we are about to have an Imperial Conference. I sincerely trust that the Government will put the position of this country in relation to Commonwealth defence frankly and clearly before the Premiers who are to meet here. In this last war, as in the first world war, there was a most remarkable common effort by the Commonwealth, spontaneous, without reservation, and beyond all praise. But in the preparation between the wars how-inadequate was the arrangement for anything like combined Commonwealth defence. It seems to me that Commonwealth defence preparations have been really a half a century behind the physical necessities of the problem and perhaps a quarter of a century behind the constitutional developments that have taken place between ourselves and the Dominions. The House will remember the discussions between 1923 and 1926 when the Statute of Westminster was passed. We arrived at equality of status, but we were left with a very important differentiation of function. That in fact was interpreted as meaning that in the matter of defence each of the Dominions was responsible for its local defence, but this little island was left with the general responsibility for the defence of the Commonwealth as a whole, helped only by contributions during the process of preparation, although, of course, when war came the position was very different.
  I think that our Government should say very frankly to the Dominion Premiers at the forthcoming meeting that any such responsibility is of course completely beyond the resources of this island in the future, that it is quite impossible for the British Commonwealth to be adequately defended unless the burden of defence is shared in proportion to our resources. The British Commonwealth and our two great Allies have formed the great tripod of power on which victory has depended, and by which we hope the peace of the world will be supported. But if the British Commonwealth can be an equal partner, this island itself cannot be, and the British Commonwealth as a whole can only be if the burden of defence
  260
  preparations is shared more equally in relation to the respective resources. It will be quite impossible for this country to proceed upon the system which resulted, for example, in almost the whole cost of the construction of Singapore falling on the taxpayers of this country. I trust that after the quarter century or something like that of complete equality of status, attained by the negative process of removing the impediments to equality, there will be a re-integration of the unity of the Commonwealth, expressed in a proportionate sharing of the problems and burdens of defence preparation.
  That is all I want to say on the question of the Imperial Conference and Commonwealth defence as such. I now want to raise a question related to the higher organisation of our defence system, on which we are promised proposals later. I will not go over the ground which was covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I want to make one modest but, I think, not unimportant, suggestion to the Government. I want to press upon them, very strongly, when they are making their long-term defence plans, and arranging their higher organisation, the inclusion, among our instruments of defence, of the storage of raw materials and food. It has been my fate, in two great wars, to be called in at the beginning of the war into the Department which had the responsibility of controlling merchant shipping, and arranging for essential imports into this country. In each case we had not only the task of importing the required supplies for the current needs of the country and the Armed Forces. We were also confronted with the fact that the stores of raw materials and food were so disgracefully low at the beginning of the war that, during the war itself, in face of all the dangers and difficulties presented by submarines, raiders, mines and aeroplanes, we were obliged to increase the build-up of stocks that should have been there before the war began
  At the beginning of this last war, as the Government announced last month, we had in this country only 3,000,000 tons of food. That was obviously an impossible stock to carry on with, and at enormous cost, and in face of great danger and with increased strain upon the supporting Forces of the Navy, we had to increase that stock. I do not think

  261
  that the figure which was regarded as necessary has been published, and so I will not give it now, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), when he was Prime Minister, said that in March last year, after stocks had been depleted by all the operations that followed D-Day, our food stocks amounted to 6,000,000 tons, that is to say, twice the stock we had when we started the war. I had a similar experience in the first world war. When therefore I came into the House, nine years ago, I spent more time in trying to get proper consideration of this problem than on any other question. We had an all-party Committee, and the matter raised great interest throughout the country. We had the support of the leading authorities in every sphere of professional interest and experience. We had with us such agriculturalists as Lord Astor and Mr. Christopher Turnor, economists such as Sir William Beveridge, and naval authorities such as the late Lord Keyes. But in this House and from the Government of that time we met with only limited success, although our case was on its merits irresistible.
  The Government accepted it in principle and, under pressure, they established the Food Defence Department, with the task of securing more war stocks. We then induced the Government to pass the Essential Commodities Act for the purpose of similarly storing raw materials. But of actual food and raw materials we got extremely little. Our best success was in regard to whale oil, and that was partly due to the initiative of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) with, I think, the help and assistance of the First Lord of the Admiralty. That stock of whale oil was of inestimable value to us throughout the war But, as I say, we got hardly any main foodstuffs and raw materials. I want to ask why it was, when we were able to demonstrate, as we were. that we could get relief to the burdens of and dangers to the Mercantile Marine and the Navy at a cost in manpower and money which was very much less than the cost of otherwise meeting that danger, we did not get better results? The clue to that question is to be found in the consideration brought before the House in the interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head)
  262
  yesterday. He pointed out that defence organisation is divided into several Service Departments and anything which is not regarded by any one of these Departments as their own special responsibility and job is likely to get inadequate attention. He mentioned for example landing craft and the use of gliders for the transport of troops. This was the trouble with the storage of food and raw materials. Everyone admitted the merits of the case in principle, but there was no great Department with authority, prestige and competent personnel in any way comparable to the three Service Departments, which had the special job and responsibility to see that there was in fact a sufficient stock of food and raw materials.
  Therefore, I earnestly ask the Government, when they are re-organising their machine and laying out their main tasks, to give a suitable place to this particular instrument of defence, and secure that it is put into the hands of a part of the organisation which is adequately equipped in personnel and adequately endowed with authority. I need hardly say that in asking for the storage of food and raw materials as part of our defence measures I am not thinking of executive action this year. I am the last person in this House to think that we can store food and raw materials, here and now, for war purposes. But I am thinking of the further future of which the White Paper, here and there, has given us occasional glimpses. There will come a time when we have passed the period of shortage, and when the world may again have an amplitude and perhaps a surplus of food and raw materials. That is the time to which I am now looking forward. I am very anxious that in any organisation and plans made before that time arrives this situation should be foreseen, and that adequate arrangements shall be made to assure this part of our defence, which as a supplement to our other defences, will be one of the most effective, one of the most economical, and at the same time the least provocative of all the measures we can take.
  That is all I wish to contribute to this Debate, except to say that I trust it will not be too long before the Government are able to say that some of the factors of uncertainty which prevented them from giving us a real defence plan at this

  263
  moment have been sufficiently resolved—and, I trust, resolved favourably—to enable them to give us a more comprehensive plan on which we can have a real defence Debate in this House.
  7.30 p.m.
  Flying-Officer Bowden: I am convinced that one of the worst tragedies which could befall this country in the next few years would be failure to fulfil our obligations to the United Nations organisation. We must, and the Government must, look ahead in an endeavour to forecast what these commitments are likely to be. It is not easy, because at this stage we do not know what are our obligations. It is true to say that the commitment is likely to be fairly heavy, taking into consideration the position in the world today. It is very likely, and is in fact almost certain, that there will be many other international zones as a result of the deliberations of the United Nations. These zones will have to be manned by the world police force, made up of the Armies and Air Forces of those nations which contribute to U.N.O. It is for that reason that I am not critical of the Government's aim of an estimated figure of 1,100,000 for 31st December; but I am not quite so happy with the intermediate figure for 30th June of this year. I was very impressed yesterday with the contribution to the Debate made by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. J. Callaghan), who introduced a rather novel scheme, whereby the release group of the Army and Air Force could be increased to Group 40 by 30th June. That would not mean a great deal in manpower, but it would mean a great deal in effect upon the morale of the men in the Services today. It is very important that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench should give every consideration to this suggestion.
  I am concerned about the final figure. I am concerned how it is likely to be made up. In a brief analysis of the figure of 1,100,000 for 31st December, 1 think we can divide our manpower under three heads: (a) those men who were called up for service before the war ended, who have served, in many instances, for three or four years; (b) the beginning of the peacetime Army, and I hope it will be evident by that time, and (c) the men who have been called up since VE-Day. Our consideration must at all times be
  264
  with the men whom I have classified under (a), and the men who have been in longer. By increasing (b,) and perhaps (c), we can reduce (a.) A great deal can be done to build up our voluntary services, which I hope, will become our peacetime services. The figure of approximately 1,000,000 may be much too high, and I sincerely hope it is, and that 500,000 will be enough, but, if 1,000,000 is required, we must aim at getting it as far as possible on a voluntary basis—it cannot be done immediately, but we can make a start. The Prime Minister said, in opening this Debate, that we have at this stage to proceed with the National Service Act, and with conscription. I agree with him that at this stage it is necessary, but that is a very different thing from conscription in peacetime.
  In calling up the young men, one or two things must be considered. Some few weeks ago—I do not remember the actual date—I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to give us the figures of the young men in this country who had been called up during the period since VE-Day up to the time I put the Question. I also asked him to tell the House how many deferment certificates had been issued in that period. It was startling to notice in the figures he gave, that of the men who were due to go into the Services, 43 per cent. had been deferred. Frankly, I feel that this is not good enough. It may be that 43 per cent was justified, and that almost one out of every two should stay in civvy street, but I cannot conceive that it is fair to the married men with families who have served for four, five and six years cut in S.E.A.C., the Far East or the Middle East. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has more information than I, to look at the question of these determents. One is continually hearing gossip on this question, and it may only be gossip, but I would ask him to look into the matter, and see if something cannot be done to reduce the number of deferments, and so release a number of additional men to come home after many years of long service.
  With regard to voluntary service in the peacetime Army, Navy and Air Force, I believe that it is possible to build up on a voluntary basis. We have new conditions of pay, which is a start,

  265
  and something can be done now in regard to conditions of service. I am sure that in the Services today there are many young men who would come forward, if one or two points could be clarified. I know of many men who would make the Services their career, but who do not want to come back to the ideas which obtained in the prewar Army, Navy and Air Force. As a point of interest, I would mention the case of a constituent of mine, who, after having been released from the Army, wrote to me imploring me to get him back. It took me six weeks. He had found civilian life too hard, and he wanted to go back into the Services. That may not be general, but many men do want to go back into the Services. I would ask Service Ministers to set up a committee to look into this whole question, and to take up a volume of King's Regulations, or A.C.Is., and to take up the Army Act, Air Force Act and equivalent Naval Act, together with a very large, blue pencil, and go through them to see if they cannot cut out a lot of the unnecessary waste which has gone on in the Services prior to the war, and to some extent during the war. There are two kinds of discipline, which I classify as real discipline, which is a type which makes a man keep himself clean and do his job, and wasteful discipline. Hon. Members may argue that there is no such thing as wasteful discipline, but I have sampled some of it. Every man who has been in the ranks, and officers as well, if they are absolutely honest with themselves, know similar cases where there has been wasteful discipline. These conditions of service must be looked at. We have not had so much during the war as in peacetime, but we have had enough. Those men who went into the Services, or were called up as I was, going out of industry and civilian -life, know of the pinpricks of petty discipline, which are more irksome and difficult to endure than either the long-distance marches, or the very hard boots which we had to put up with in the early days. It is that sort of thing which gets a man down. It is an insult to the intelligence 0f the average man, and must be removed. The time to consider democratisation of the Forces is now, and I hope the Ministers will look into it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) mentioned the women's
  266
  Services. A rather interesting conference was held in my constituency last week by a purely feminist organisation which came to the conclusion, with which, incidentally, I do not agree, that if there is to be conscription for men, there must be conscription for women. I do not agree with that, but 1 do agree that, in view of the fact that women have demonstrated clearly during the war years that they are able to make a very good contribution to the Services, they should be permitted to do so in peacetime on a voluntary basis. I can think of very many jobs in the peacetime Services in which the A.T.S., the W.R.N.S. and the W.A.A.F. could do very good work as clerks and typists. We are not over-abundantly supplied with manpower in this country, and I think we should use the services of girls who wish to continue in the Services on a voluntary basis. I hope the Ministers concerned will consider that matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), and other hon. Members, have spoken about conscription. They may not agree with me, but I draw a line between the continuation of national service in this period which cannot honestly be called peacetime, and conscription for the Regular Army in the ordinary piping days of normal peace In such times and circumstances the matter would have to be reconsidered, but the time for that is not now. I urge the Government to do everything they can to decide finally on the figures necessary to meet our commitments to the United Nations and to see that the original men who were called up before VE Day are not left in the Services a minute longer than is absolutely necessary.
  7.42 p.m.
  Squadron - Leader Emrys Roberts: I would like to make such contribution as I can to this Debate in the light of the considerations which have been in the minds of other hon. Members who have spoken. I think they have been troubled by the difficulty of reconciling two aims The first is the necessity of producing an efficient fighting force able to guard this country against sudden attack, capable of swift expansion in an emergency, and able to take its part in the United Nations military

  267
  organisation. The second aim, with which the first must be reconciled, is to fit that desirable force into our limited human, financial and economic resources. I think those two aims can be achieved if we follow four lines of approach.
  As a preface, I should like to say that we should consider this whole subject in the light of the lessons to be derived from six years of war and, as a corollary, that we should ensure preservation of the most important liberties of the individual. The first line of approach is that the major concentration must be upon scientific research and technical training, and the use of the most modern technical equipment. The second line of approach is that the manpower must be the best that is available. The third is that we must achieve the utmost economy in administration of the Services. The fourth is that we must conceive of defence policy as depending upon foreign policy, and keep both within the framework of the United Nations. I do not wish to dwell upon the first two methods, except to stress again, as has already been done in this Debate, and as the "Manchester Guardian" says in its leading article today, that if we are to be extravagant in anything, we must be extravagant in research, and, on the second method, that we should concentrate not only on the best conditions of pay, but on the best conditions of service to which we can attain. The White Paper on pay and conditions in the Services sets out in the main conditions of work and pay in the Services comparable with those in civilian employment, but I do not think it wholly achieves that end. I think we could go a long way towards simplifying the system of allowances, but I am sorry that the White Paper abolishes dependants' allowances since this penalises single men with dependants. I think we should pursue the general line of the White Paper so as to make, not only the pay, but the general conditions of life in the Services, as attractive as civilian occupations.
  I want now to say a few words on economy in administration. Economy in administration goes hand-in-hand with efficiency in administration. During the war I served in the Royal Air Force, and one must accept, rightly or wrongly, that there is a certain lack of confidence
  268
  among serving officers at lower formations in the administrative efficiency of the Air Ministry. I think the same thing is true of the Army. I was serving at a group headquarters. There was difficulty in getting swift decision from the Air Ministry not on the operational side, but on the administrative side. There was lack of response to new suggestions. There is a strong case for an inquiry into the administrative mechanism of' the three Service Departments. For instance, the courts martial system is cumbersome and antiquated. It involves the use of about 24 forms; accused persons have to wait for many weeks, and sometimes months, before they know the results of their sentences. The system was framed in the days when the standard of intelligence among officers was far lower than it is today. In such things as courts martial and administrative procedure generally, there is room for reform in all three Departments.
  A far more important aspect of economy in administration, however, is the integration of the three Services. The Prime Minister said that he has an open mind on these matters. I urge the Government to consider very strongly the possibility of a complete integration of the Service Departments. It would simplify the work of finance and administration. For example, during the war, in Britain and abroad, the Air Force and the Army in the same area often had to draw their pay and their supplies independently from different depots and headquarters. Further, a unified department would prevent that competition for materials and men which we saw in the early days of the war. I would like to see a single War Ministry with one political head, controlling all three Services. It is anomalous and out of date in these days that the Defence Ministries should each have political heads with places in the Cabinet. It is all wrong that there should be three Service Ministers in the Cabinet. Yet, the Minister of Food is not in the Cabinet; the Minister of Works is not there; the Minister of Supply is not there but all these represent vital Ministries at the present time. The Foreign Office has only one representative in the Cabinet; although foreign policy is fundamental and defence policy only ancillary to foreign policy. Yet each Defence Ministry has its political representative in the Cabinet. That is

  269
  clinging to an outworn tradition which is not fit for the present day.

  It seems to me that the figure of 1,100,000 as the total of our Armed Forces given in the White Paper, is very large for this country. In terms of economic effort it is more than one million men unemployed, doing non-productive work. The Military Staff Committee of the United Nations is meeting soon. The only sure way to reduce the figure of 1,100,000 is to integrate our defence services with the military mechanism of the United Nations. We heard the Foreign Secretary speak a little while ago about the ultimate ideal being a Parliament of the world representing the peoples of the world. The logical corollary to that is an International Police Force. That conception should be kept in mind when defence policy is worked out in its later aspects.
  I submit that we can solve the problem of defence along those lines without talking of bringing in conscription. Resort to conscription is a retrograde step and no argument at all for it has been brought forward. The production of an efficient fighting machine must depend on the conceptions of which I have spoken, and particularly upon generosity in research, and adoption of the most modern equipment, the most attractive terms of voluntary service, and upon constant endeavour to fit our commitments and our forces to the mechanism and the functions of the United Nations.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: When I left the Army, the last order I received from my colleagues was that I should never, in any circumstances, attempt to address this House on any matter related to military affairs. There is certainly a great danger of an amateur with a little knowledge gained in abnormal times being rather a menace in that respect. I therefore put forward what I have to say with great diffidence.
  The White Paper deals with short-term matters, but I do not propose to deal with those myself, but rather to say a word or two on matters of long-term policy. The first of them is the general question of the policy with regard to the Armed Forces that we are to have. Indications have been given of attempts to drag into Party politics matters like conscription
  270
  and the reorganisation of the Forces. I think to do so would be disastrous. I am content to accept the statement with regard to conscription put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg), the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Captain Swingler), and other hon. Members who have spoken with extreme moderation and reason on the matter. I should have thought we wanted a clear declaration from the Government that we are to have Armed Forces adequate for our commitments, with conditions of pay, accommodation and service that would compare favourably with those, for example, in a first-class commercial concern, and that the Armed Forces would have the best resources that could be provided for them technically. If that is the policy of the Government, they do not say so in the White Paper, although they come near to it. If they would say that, matters like conscription and those which were referred to by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) will fall into their proper perspective. It would be disastrous if we dragged the future organisation of the forces into Party politics.
  My second point is in regard to the future of technical development. Paragraph 15 (a) on the subject of technical progress states:
  "Scientific and technical progress at the present time is so rapid that safety lies far more in the maintenance of adequate organisation for pure and applied research than in the building up of stocks of obsolescent equipment."
  In my submission that is a platitudinous statement which is quite valueless without some indication of the means to be taken to implement it I know, and other hon. Members know, that in the Service Departments in some cases bureaucracy can be seen in its worst form. We also know that the dead hand of the Treasury is apt to constrict and retard scientific development in the Forces. We are entitled, I submit, to some explanation of the passage which I have read. How will that organisation be devised? How will it be staffed and equipped? How is the necessary elasticity to be provided? How is the work to be co-ordinated? Those are questions of such vital importance for the future of our Armed Forces that we are entitled to rather more information than the Government have seen fit to give us in the White Paper.

  271
  My next point relates to the integration of the three Services. We have heard a great deal about coordination and co-operation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) soared rather into the stratosphere on these matters at Cabinet level. I know that there were times in the war when cooperation was virtually nonexistent. Cooperation among the Services was a very tender plant which needed a great deal of careful nursing. It only matured towards the end of the war. I give my opinion for what it is worth when I say that in the North-West European campaign it was not until the crossing of the Rhine, an operation which took place about 12 months ago, that we had a properly and fully coordinated, combined operation by land forces, airborne forces and air forces. I am not suggesting for a moment that that was anybody's fault, but coordination and cooperation can only be achieved by a great deal of trial and error, experience and training. The point upon which I think the White Paper lacks information is as to how in peace conditions it will be possible to provide that practical experience and cooperation. That is why on this occasion I have used the word "integration." Unless we train integrated staffs; we cannot achieve the necessary cooperation. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) went as far as to say "unit training," but I will not go so far as that. I would say that unless we can have formation training on a three Service basis, we shall not produce the necessary coordination and cooperation in the very short time in which it might be required. I also would again put forward a plea for the type of unit of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) spoke, and which he' so aptly termed a "hinge" formation. I hope that at a time of cutting down and construction of the Armed Forces this type of unit will not be lost sight of.
  On the question of co-operation between the three Services, there are adhesions, prejudices, traditions, and even vested interests which have to be broken down, and I believe that very strong action will be required in order to obtain the necessary integration which was being achieved towards the end of the war. Looking at paragraph 22,
  272
  which is the relevant paragraph of the White Paper, I find it rather barren, and I strongly suspect that it is a facade behind which, in fact, very little is being done so far as concerns future development. I admit that some attention is no doubt being paid to day to day problems, but I strongly suspect that there is very little being done in relation to the future.
  The fourth point concerns the question of collaboration with the Dominions. I should have thought it quite impossible to conceive of an adequate defence scheme without their assistance. On the other hand, we have the suspicions which undoubtedly exist of dictatorship from Whitehall. Yet if each component of the Empire had its own army, navy, and air force, the effect would be to Balkanise ourselves, and we should be incapable of any large-scale operation in the time available. At the same time it is essential that this problem should be approached with the admission that some loss of sovereignty is inevitable, particularly some loss of sovereignty on the part of Whitehall. I think the White Paper is singularly disappointing on this point, and it is clear from the last sentence of it that very little is being done, although there is a note as to what will be done in the future I am certain that public opinion throughout the Dominions and in this country is overwhelmingly in favour of effective cooperation, and while public opinion is in that frame of mind, practical steps should be taken to secure the necessary collaboration and cooperation.
  I would conclude by saying something which I do not think is appreciated by all Members, certainly not the hon. Members for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and Ladywood (Mr. Yates). It is possible to discuss these matters in a non-militaristic manner. We are not a militaristic nation and we have proved it to our cost in blood and treasure twice in this century. No one wishes to militarise this country or to militarise the Empire, but it is necessary that we should take a balanced view and have adequate defence forces for our current commitments. I submit that so long as the Armed Forces are an essential service we are entitled to ask the Government that they should be reasonably efficient, and what is more important, we are also entitled to ask them to give the necessary direction and to provide the necessary

  273
  resources to that end. I welcome the White Paper, but I regret that it is not more specific and forthcoming on the matters to which I have referred.
  8.4 p.m.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: Having been successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will not detain the House more than a few moments to discuss two small points. So far as I can see, the main consideration in this matter is that of manpower. As back benchers I think we are quite unable to say what our Service requirements are, politically or strategically. We have not the knowledge. It does appear however that overriding everything is the fact that we are short of manpower, and the first question I want to raise is whether we are using our manpower in the Services to the best advantage. What is their function? If it is to keep law and order throughout the world and in every country we are occupying, then of course we must spread, and that does entail the figures that are being quoted in this House. If on the other hand, as I believe, it is to secure and to maintain world peace, then we should not need to spread our forces as they are now spread. I am sure that hon. Members and hon. and gallant Members will agree that I am right in saying that concentration is what we should aim at in this respect. It will give us not only efficiency but economy. At present we are not concentrating. In Germany a few weeks ago I saw a tank regiment of 400 men, policing 150square miles of that country. They had everything to do in that area but they had no tanks. If we do that kind of thing wherever we are in occupation we shall want these large numbers, but if, instead, we can have a policy of concentration, in an area where one aerodrome will supply airborne forces, then I feel that we can use our manpower in the best possible way as specialised forces of small numbers, and have a large number in industry.
  There is one other point which I am sure is going to be contentious. It concerns the Army and the Royal Air Force. I suggest seriously that the time has now come when there should be, not only closer co-operation between these two Services, but a fusion. One should not be in an inferior position to the other, but there should, definitely, be a marriage be-
  274
  tween them. In this war we have seen the Army with their glider and airborne troops and the Air Force with their ground troops. It seems to me these two great forces could contribute very much more to the defence of the country and of the Empire if they were one. The Army, operationally, is magnificent. Administratively, I suggest, it is shocking. The Air Force would gain by the tradition and discipline of the Army. Perhaps we should lose many of the stupid Air Force ranks. We have wing commanders who never command a wing, flying officers who do not fly, aircraft hands who never go near aircraft. Then they formed the Women's Auxiliary Air Force and we now have L.A.C.Ws. who are leading aircraftmen—women who are really clerks or cooks. I do not know who the idiot was who created these titles but they are among the things we could do without.
  I suggest to Ministers that this question of a modern and more highly mobile airborne land force should be given serious consideration on the grounds of economy and manpower. Hon. Members will perhaps remember that during those lean years of 1920 to 1930—lean for the Services—the Air Force was given whole countries to look after and to police, because of the manpower situation and of shortages in the Army. This was very successful particularly in Iraq and Palestine and those countries were looked after entirely by the Air Force. If that can be done in those countries and climates, it can be done now by small forces if they are airborne, and if they depend upon each other for their training and for the close co-operation which can only be achieved by having one Force. On the question of conscription, I have nothing to say except that I feel sure that on this side of the House there is no divergence of opinion in that we do not: like conscription as we do not like rationing, but we must have rationing and we realise that, at the moment, we must have conscription. That does not make us like it any the better, but I am sure we are prepared to face this question of conscription until such time as we have the U.N.O. Forces to take over those duties.
  8.11 p.m.
  Major Boyd-Carpenter: When at 3·15 yesterday afternoon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I first

  275
  attempted to catch your eye, I had a long speech full, as I thought, of mellow wisdom. The mellow wisdom has evaporated and so, I am glad to say, has most of the speech. So all I propose to do in the few minutes available to me is to ask one or two questions of the right hon. Gentleman who, I understand, is to reply for the Government. The White Paper, very naturally and properly, sets out at paragraph 12 the fact that provision for our defences must inevitably be considered in the light of competing claims to manpower. In view of the fact that the demand for manpower is such, has consideration been given by the Government to the possibility of recruiting a Foreign Legion? Considerable trained personnel is available from a good many of our Allies who, for one reason or another. would, I believe, be prepared to take service under the British Crown. Has consideration been given to using those trained men, many of them, as I know, first class soldiers, to eke out our own admittedly limited resources of manpower?
  The second question follows from that: As the House is aware, for some generations the Kingdom of Nepal has furnished Ghurka troops to the Indian Army. In view of the prospective profound changes in India, and presumably in the organisation of Indian defence, has consideration been given to effecting direct recruitment of those Ghurka troops into the Imperial Forces? I am sure hon. Members who have seen the Ghurkas in the field will agree with me that there is first-class fighting material, traditionally and by family association, accustomed to taking service under the King-Emperor I would ask whether, in order to eke out our limited manpower resources, consideration has been given to the possibility of bringing these magnificent troops into the direct service of the Crown? There, at any rate, are two possible lines for consideration by His Majesty's advisers, and I would ask the First Lord, if he is able to do so, to say whether those ideas have been considered and, if so, what objection exist to adopting them?
  I am sure all hon. Members have shared the disappointment expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that it has not been possible for the Government in this White Paper to give any statement
  276
  as to the length of time that men now being called to the Forces will be compelled to serve. Why is it not possible, even tonight, to give at any rate a maximum period; to say to these young men whose whole lives and education and apprenticeship are being disrupted, "We cannot tell you exactly how long you will be called upon to serve, but you shall not be called upon to serve for longer than this period." That would be some contribution towards relieving the educational chaos existing at the moment in the country owing to the fact that the Government have not been able to make up their minds on that point.
  Again, can the First Lord enlighten us as to what is to be done to those men under 30 who have been deferred from military service during the war by reason of their work in essential industry, whose deferments have now come to an end by reason, in many cases, of the closing down of munition plants; men of 25 and 26 who have not the faintest idea when, or if they are to be called up at all. Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to give tonight some enlightenment as to their intentions with respect to these men who represent a very substantial branch, in many cases, of highly skilled labour, and who would be able either to prepare themselves for a period in the forces, or to prepare themselves to take new employment if only they could get an answer as to what their future is to be?
  There is one other question, and one only. Reference has been made in this long and interesting Debate to the future of the training areas in this country, and several hon. Members have emphasised the inconvenience and the economic loss which fall in a small island like this upon those areas that have to be used for large scale training operations, and for such purposes as bombing and artillery ranges. In view of the fact that, quite properly, the White Paper gives as the first commitment of our Forces the occupation of Germany, has consideration been given to using areas in Germany for this purpose? Luneberg Heath offers ample facilities, and is it not right that the people of this country who have endured so much during these last six years, should be freed from the unpleasant interference of military training areas with their lives, and that that liability should rest upon the German people? I would add that it may

  277
  well be that the occasional or, indeed, frequent detonations which are to be heard in the neighbourhood of such areas might well have a valuable effect in inducing in German minds a reminiscence of what it is to encounter the British Empire in arms —a reminiscence which may not be without its value in educating a new generation in Germany.
  Finally, it is apparent, whatever criticisms one may make of the detail of the White Paper, that despite a certain pressure from behind them, the Government appreciate their very great responsibility in the present troubled world in maintaining our Forces in an adequate strength to offer some degree of protection to this country and the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in sombre and majestic language has described what happened after the last war when the victors permitted the instruments of their power to crumble in their hands, and I would say to the Government that it is overwhelmingly their duty, no matter what pressure may be put upon them from behind, to see to it that that sorry story is not repeated after this war.
  8.19 p.m.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): We have had two days' Debate upon the first White Paper upon Defence submitted to the House of Commons since prewar days. I suppose it is almost to be expected that we should have some criticism from the Front Bench opposite as to what is available to be published to the House of Commons at a period so soon after the end of the war, dealing with such a period of un-settlement as the Prime Minister referred to yesterday, and with Estimates—which, of course, in this White Paper are only in lump—of a financial year which is now approaching, and which, as must obviously occur at once to hon. Members, is not a normal peace year. If the House would bear those main facts in mind, they would attune their view perhaps a little more readily to the one I shall have to submit to them tonight. The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) asked me a number of questions. I did not get notice of some of them. They were exceedingly interesting. Foreign legion, employment of Ghurkas—these are very important questions. He may rest well
  278
  assured that with the kind of Chiefs of Staff organisation built up in the course of the war, when we are stretched for manpower no suggestion for extending the area from which our manpower has to be drawn would ever be outside their purview. The hon. and gallant Member must also remember that the Government must on all such questions have due regard to any possible political repercussions. I am certainly not going to respond tonight to the general invitation on these matters in which he asked, "Are you going to use such forces, and, if not, will you state the reasons?" On a different occasion it might be possible to say more about it, but certainly I would not wish to go into that tonight.
  In the course of the general Debate there has been continual return by hon. Members opposite and many of my hon. Friends to some of the main points that were raised by the Opposition yesterday through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). Leaving out of account one or two of the special Army questions with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War dealt at the opening of the Debate this afternoon, it might be convenient if, at the outset, I dealt with some of the points the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden raised. In referring to the general position as outlined in the White Paper, he asked why we could not make more immediate and more definite announcements as to the size and make-up of the Forces of the Crown required at the present time and in the more immediate future. I think he will agree and I am certain the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) will agree, because of his reference to the figure we have postulated for our Forces at the end of 1946, that at the present time with all its immediate commitments, commitments set out in the White Paper and assented to by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, it is obvious we have to provide Forces which, compared with the ordinary peace period between wars, must be regarded as abnormal. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would on reflection seriously require me to give any further particulars at present as to what our intentions are about the actual size and make-up of our Forces.
  I should have thought it was fairly plain from what the Prime Minister said

  279
  yesterday that when this period is over— and of course we shall be using the time during the period as well—we shall be giving not, I hope, unduly hurried consideration but really adequate consideration, with the help of our technical officers, to the question of what should be the extent and make-up of our permanent peacetime Forces. I believe that with a careful and deliberate study of that kind—taking into account the actual events which come this year, and whether they fulfil the kind of hope which the Prime Minister expressed yesterday— we may be able to withdraw our Forces from certain of the theatres in which at present they are bound to be. We can look at the development of the United Nations Organisation and see, for example, what kind of response there is to the obligations of each member of U.N.O. under Article 43 of its Charter; we can see what kind of contribution each one of the nations is going to make in agreement with the organisation and see what remains for us, as one of the leading Powers of the Security Council, to contribute ourselves.
  It seems quite clear listening to the Debate tonight that there is no fundamental difference of opinion in any part of the House that with our experience of two great wars in the last 26 or 27 years, with the extraordinary development and growing terror of the scientific weapons which can now be used in warfare, there can be little hope for the peace and progress of mankind unless such an organisation as the United Nations organisation can be made really to work and unless we can establish once and for all the principle upon which I myself essayed in the John Clifford lecture in 1934, a principle which 1 believe still to be fundamental for the -future peace of the world. That is that we proceed to set up an organisation which will act as a Court of Justice and that all people of goodwill through all the nations of the world will be prepared to back the decisions of that impartial Court of Justice by whatever sanctions are required against an aggressor. I do not see any other possible way to avoid a repetition of the kind of holocaust through which we have passed with such enormous sacrifice and such a terrible upset to our economy and that of other countries.
  I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman if I would not be more explicit for
  280
  the convenience both of our youth, and of employers and of educational institutions as to what should be the actual period for the men called up for compulsory service during the present time. The right hon. Gentleman proffered two periods of service; one for the temporary transitional period, which he said ought not to be more than two years; the other for any permanent system of national service if the Government adopted it, and the House approved it—two things which have yet to be seen—one year for that period. I do not need to speak about the second period because that would be a matter for subsequent decision. If that comes to be decided, then we should have to take great notice of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, in view of his experience at the Ministry of Education, as to educational facilities which might be given between the ages of 18 and 21. Educational institutions for the man training for the professions or not yet through his apprenticeship, will have to be taken into account in any permanent system the House may adopt later on. But I beg hon. Members not to run away with the idea that it is easy to say to the world exactly what the period of service should be for conscripts called up in this transitional period.
  One thing of which I have not heard at all, on the point that has been raised in many places, is the feeling of justice we have to put in the minds of those now serving, who have to be demobilised some time or other. If, in face of present commitments, and the present difficulties the forces have in getting balanced units in whatever part of the world they may be serving, we now fixed the period at two years, we might get the case of men who were called up last year or earlier who would be held for a longer period in the Service than the period of two years for calling up to which we had now tied ourselves. I hope intensely that the situation may so change in the next few months that such agreements might be come to in Indonesia, Greece and in other places where we have commitments, that we might have such a reduction that we could settle, perhaps at an earlier date than we can now foresee, what that fixed period of service should be, without doing an injustice to those who are already in the Service. It would puzzle anyone, having regard to the position of those who are now serving, to fix a period of service for new conscripts which would give

  281
  justice to those who are now in the Services. I do not propose to say more upon that position.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I wonder whether, as my right hon. Friend does not intend to deal with the period of service, he intends saying anything in reply to the question put regarding the attitude of the Government as to the abandonment of conscription at some future date for peace-time purposes.
  Mr. Alexander: I do not propose to make any pronouncement at all tonight. It is one of the advantages of the Government to be able to arrange with the Opposition, so soon after the cessation of hostilities, an occasion when we might feel the pulse of the House in this matter. Views have been expressed in various quarters of the House in favour of compulsion. Other views have been expressed, as in the case of my hon. Friend, against compulsion. I do not think there is anyone who wants to have compulsory service solely for the sake of compulsory service. After examining our commitments on the lines I have already described, and after listening to the views of the House, the Government will come to such decision as it may in due course, and will make its recommendations to the House.
  The question was put to me why it was not possible for us to have reduced the figure of the Forces to 1,550,000 by 31st March, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington said had been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill). The right hon. Member for Woodford did say before he put forward those figures, that of course he had not now access to the figures and the full information that the Government had, but he said he had some experience, and he would make a sort of suggestion as to those figures. Of course, from that fairly easy but quite helpful point of view which he presented, it is easy just to think of a number and of a date and then say, by thinking of that number and date together, that one has a solution of our problems. That is not really so; it is not so easy as that.
  The fact is that from the first layout of the demobilisation programme, which was at that time being quite severely criticised, we then had to improvise very
  282
  quickly a change in the programme because of the early fall of V.J. Day. We decided to expedite those figures, and after we had got an expedited figure of demobilisation up to last December, we decided still further to expedite releases. That was done. In consequence, it may well be, as I suggested in an interjection while the right hon. Gentleman opposite was speaking, that in order to get a balanced position for units in the Forces required to be maintained at the end of 1946, we shall be demobilising at a somewhat slower rate than during this specially expedited period. The Government decided, and it had done so already at the end of 1945 and the beginning of 1946, to expedite as much as possible, so that we might put the largest proportion of manpower possible into the economic reconstruction of the country. But, in relation to the task to be discharged, the commitments to be fulfilled, in the very words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it may be that we have been too optimistic with regard to the figure suggested for the end of this year. I very much hope not, but I say that in order to have functioning at every period between now and the end of the year efficient and balanced Forces, we have taken the right course, and in all the circumstances we have achieved an extraordinary reduction.
  If we reach the target which is set for next December, I am not quite sure whether all Members in the House realise how much that reduction will have been. The Prime Minister did point out that it would mean that by the end of December four out of five of the men serving on V.E. Day would be out on 31st December. That is a very large reduction. In the course of questions put to me, I was asked if I could say what was the exact breakdown of the figures which are postulated for the end of the year. I very much hope that we shall have at least 250,000 Regulars among the 1,200,000 —I am including the 100,000 for training. 400,000 of the rest will have been taken in since V.E. Day, and only 550,000 out of the whole 1,200,000 in the Forces at the end of the year will be conscripts who were serving before V.E. Day. This works out at only one in nine of the total force which was existing on V.E. Day. That emphasises the extraordinary rapidity with which this demobilisation has taken place,

  283
  and in all circumstances I can claim on behalf of those who are leading the Staffs of the Forces, that they have achieved this quick reduction with extraordinary smoothness, in spite of difficulties here and there, and there has been a reabsorption into industry in a manner which is encouraging.
  Then I was asked a kind of conundrum by the right hon. Gentleman. He said I would be able to reply in special language. I make no such claim, but, of course, with his usual acuteness, he fastened upon a sticky spot on the wicket. I knew that quite well. Directly he asked it, I said "How can one devise a phrase to describe what is an average age group? "As a matter of fact the people who are. working the system understand what they have to do. The average group is. not an average in an exact mathematical sense—it represents the number of the group up to which about 80 per cent. of the personnel in any particular release programme are released, and the other 20 per cent., with all the little difficulties that have to be met in each group, fall behind or go a little ahead of the position of the average age group. That is the very best I can do.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he expects the ordinary person serving to understand his formula?
  Mr. Alexander: I am not quite sure whether many in the Forces would understand the right hon. Gentleman's question. Now I was also asked a question about supply. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden referred at some length, or at least with some emphasis, to the very large figure, as he put it, of 1,790,000, represented at the end of last year as labour employed on supplies for the Services. I may say at once that that figure is known to us to contain a considerable element of employment on goods for civilian use. The total is to be discounted by that amount, which is not very easily determinable because of the difficulty of many firms in dividing their own returns, and the remainder is very largely engaged on meeting the supply of the Services for current maintenance and for demobilisation. For example, the production of clothing and general stores alone, in-
  284
  cluding demobilisation outfits, accounts for close on half a million of labour.
  Then I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman whether in fact there was any truth in the suggestion that we are going on manufacturing obsolescent material and especially, he said, aircraft. Well, the right hon. Gentleman's question in general about obsolescence was answered in advance by the Prime Minister yesterday. I would refer him to what the Prime Minister said. As regards his specific question about aircraft, I would say there were no types of aircraft still in production which the Services do not need or which we do not expect to be of use. Indeed, the production of combat aircraft has already been reduced to the minimum and may well be below—I hope it may not be so—the level necessary to maintain the ultimate peace time Air Force. Production of transport aircraft will decline rapidly during the second half of this year.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend beside him asked about the ultimate target that we have for the end of the year of half a million. I would say, as for the future generally, it really is not considered, in view of the size of the Forces that we have put before the House, that 500,000 is an unreasonable estimate of the labour required to keep them fully supplied. Reduction down to that number will be effected as quickly as contracting requirements of the Services actually are met. Then I was asked whether I could give a breakdown in the figure of £230 million in the White Paper for production. The figures are, in broad and round fashion: Admiralty, £70 million; War Office, £70 million, Air Ministry, £60 million; Common Services by the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production, £30 million.
  My right hon. Friend also asked with rather a flourish, I thought, exactly how we made up such a nondescript total as "Miscellaneous, £181 million." After all, this is not a detailed estimate. This is given in lump to the House. I would refer my hon. Friends in all parts of the House in general to the more detailed estimates which will be laid before them, but I can say that the division between the three Services of the Miscellaneous items are £35 million for the Admiralty, £106 million for the War Office, and £40 million for the Air Ministry. They

  285
  are accounted for in the main—not altogether, but in the main—by three heads. First, the wages of civilian employees; secondly, by transport, and, thirdly, by fuel. Considering our commitments at the present time, I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that.
  Then both the right hon. Gentleman and other Members in other parts of the House asked me specific questions about the future of research and scientific development. I would emphasise what the Prime Minister said yesterday, and say that in the Forces that we may have to maintain and with the money that we have to spend, we are determined that research and development shall form one of the most important parts of the whole programme. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington asked me whether we would pursue our programme in research and development at least with the same kind of persistence and continuity as we did in the war. I would answer him quite categorically, yes, but he would be the first to recognise that in the war we drew almost to an unlimited extent—not wholly, but almost—both upon resources and upon highly skilled and qualified personnel. Whenever the Service required it, they had it. We have now, of course, to centralise much of that research work, not wholly for the Service Departments but also for development and research for industry at large. They must obviously in the present state take a larger part of that than they did in the war. The right hon. Member can be assured that although we cannot say perhaps that we can lump all the expenditure into exactly one channel—we shall have to have separate estimates in each of the Service estimates —it is fundamental with the shortage of highly qualified personnel and resources that we shall have to co-ordinate the whole centrally. That we propose to do.
  Mr. Keeling: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of research and development, would he answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir Ralph Glyn) as to whether the Government accept in the main the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure on that matter?
  Mr. Alexander: I should say in general the report of the Select Committee is not
  286
  very much out of harmony with what is being done. What I can assure my hon. Friend is that there has been during the war an extraordinary development of integration between our senior staffs and their immediate assistants in the scientific work, and we shall do our best to get the fullest possible co-ordination.
  I have been asked, especially from some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, why we cannot assist the more rapid return from the Forces of men in the Army and Air Force by transferring men from the Royal Navy, and to explain how it is that the Royal Navy groups seem always to be in advance of the other two Services Let me say first of all on the latter point that there is no real difference between any of the three Forces in the proportion of their total force which has been, and is being, demobilised. We are getting, therefore, on a perfectly safe and sound line as regards total numbers to the targets which are set out in the White Paper. If there have been up to now a certain advance of groups in the case of the Navy, it is largely because in the years 1940–41 and the early part of 1942—partly because we could not produce the ships in time to absorb all the men who would have liked to join the Navy, and the need was so urgent in the other Forces—they put men into larger age groups than we had for that period in the Royal Navy.
  Now, we shall be coming on to periods of much larger age groups than we have been handling in the past, and, though I certainly cannot promise that there will be a complete levelling-up of dates of age groups in all the Services, I can say that there will certainly be an improvement. I ought to add that it is quite impossible for us to promise, with any economy or efficiency, or any real ultimate use, a general transfer of men from the Navy for the purpose suggested at the present time. What would that involve? Men of the Royal Navy are stationed all over the world, and the first thing to do would be to transport a great many of them and re-muster them. The next thing to do would be to transfer them to the Army, and then the Army, in many cases, if not in most cases, would have to re-train them and then post them to Army units. Next, they would have to be transported to their ultimate units, and, by the time that was accomplished, most of the men to be transferred would be pretty well

  287
  ready themselves for release. Really, there is neither economy nor efficiency, nor any solace to the men in the Forces themselves offered by such a method as that, and I therefore cannot promise that it shall be done.
  I have been asked to make some reference the Colonial Forces.
  Major Wyatt: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him if it would not be possible for sailors just about to come out of the Navy to be lent to the Army, without being transferred to the Army? Could they not be lent to the nearest Army unit in the locality? Special training is not needed to do guard duties.
  Mr. Alexander:I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have had some experience of it after about six years, and some experience exactly how that falls to be dealt with in regard to pay, records, accounts and transfers, sometimes from all parts of the world and in small units, and I say that it is really much too difficult for us to be able to promise that it should be done. With regard to the Colonial Forces, may I say that I join with the expressions which have come from different parts of the House in paying tribute to the work which has been done not only by such units as the East and West African Divisions, but the splendid voluntary service which came from all parts of the Colonial Empire in the way of individual enlistments in the Army, Air Force and the Navy. We shall, of course, do what we can at any time to make them feel conscious that their service has been valuable and that it will be possible to use the Colonial members in that direction.
  The next point I mention is in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden who said there was some most unjustified delay—he was a little scathing in his language—in the call-up of recruits for the Royal Navy. There have been a few delays, but not nearly as serious as one would have inferred from his remarks, and I can say to the right hon. Gentleman now that there is no substantial delay in the call-up of the technical branches, although I am bound to confess that there is some delay occasionally in the seamen and stoker
  288
  branches, which have been hindered on account of the demands for de-requisitioning on the Services, because of the use of agricultural land and so on. We have had to give up a number of our training establishments, which has led to some delay in the call-up. I hope to avoid anything serious in that direction in future.
  The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) used a little better judgment on the White Paper and dealt in some detail with the weapons of the Navy—the battleship, the submarine and so on. As this was a general Debate, the hon. Member was not out of Order, I propose to reply although perhaps I could have saved any further reference to it until the Navy Estimates Debate. The hon. Member urged the abolition of the battleship on the grounds of common-sense and because, in the words of the White Paper:
  "… a severe reduction in the output of weapons and equipment for the Forces is essential not only in the interests of our economic recovery, but also to avoid the accumulation of obsolescent munitions."
  One would think, by that, that the battleship had been a failure in the recent war. I will deal with the future in a moment, but no one can really argue that the battleship has been a failure in this war. [Interruption.] Well, it certainly has been a success. We have been able to keep our long communications free, and by the destruction of heavy enemy units, such as the Bismarck, the Scharnhorst and in the Battle of Matapan. Surely my hon. Friend, who is a representative of a dockyard town, forgets things of that kind? Why, even in the last stage of the greatest war in modern times, in the Pacific heavy units of our Fleet bombarded the Japanese coast, and, if we look at combined operations—I suppose it was only an accident to some people—the landings on the Normandy beaches were masked by the 16-inch guns of the Rodney. We must not be quite so hazy about this. I regret my hon. Friend talking like this, and talking about the battleship as the spearhead of the Fleet. I have never heard of it as the spearhead; I have heard of it as the backbone of the Fleet, and certainly as the king or queen on the chess-board of naval warfare, on which so many other units actually operate. We could have a perfectly good argument on paper that the battleship is finished because of the atomic bomb. That is what will be said. I remember the

  289
  experiments in air bombing against battleships sent out into the Atlantic as sitting targets in 1925. They duly sank them.
  Captain Blackburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman please show some sense of proportion?
  Mr. Alexander: I do not aspire to the wisdom of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have had some experience of naval warfare, and I would say that we had experiments and that everybody said '' The battleship is finished "In fact, they said" The Navy is finished." Hon. Members should mark that, and remember that, 21 years after that experiment, it is the American nation which possesses the largest and most powerful fleet, including battleships, the world has ever seen. What has become of the prophecy? I think we had better wait and see a bit longer.
  Captain Blackburn Captain Blackburn rose —
  Mr. Alexander: No, I cannot give way; I have not the time. I realise, as much as anybody, the enormous power and threat of the atomic bomb. Well, on that, we are going to witness the American experiment, and that will perhaps lead to changes, and, of course, the battleship may recede from the position of being the capital ship of the Fleet, but no one can deny, especially after the grand experience of our own ships in the Pacific and how they stood up to the most damaging and suicidal attacks, that they can still become part of the attack, perhaps also be part of the instrument for intercepting the atomic bomb and also serve as mobile flying bases.
  Captain Blackburn: May I say one word? I would like to make this point of fact. In actual fact, this experiment has been boycotted by American scientists, because the bomb is not going to be dropped inside the ocean, which is the way to try to overturn a battleship. It is reasonable, therefore, for one not to accept the judgment of the immediate test.
  Mr. Alexander: I do not think we had better prejudge events. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Government, as all Governments, will have at their disposal pretty good scientific advice. Another point my hon. and gal-
  290
  lant Friend made was a sound one. He said how great it would be to abolish the submarine I had the honour of moving a Resolution to that effect during the Naval Conference of 1930, but no one listened. It is said that owing to the atomic bomb the submarine can have no effect. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, with his anti-submarine experience in the past, will realise that, as the submarine goes to greater depths, we had better wait and see the effect of the atomic bomb launched upon water on under-water ships. It is much too early yet to make final judgments on those particular points. I liked what he said about the possibility of having another Disarmament Conference, although I would beg him to consider, in the meantime, that if we come to an agreed limitation it should not hamstring all the efforts of our own people in regard to tonnage as well as numbers. If we want to provide for all the new gadgets of the great modern factory which the warship is and still give decent accommodation to the officers and men aboard, we may not want to limit tonnage to the same extent as at present.
  In the short time I have got left, and before replying to the right hon. Gentleman opposite about defence organisation, I would like to refer for a moment or two to the speech made last night by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus). I do not see him in the House at the moment, but he may be here. I must say I thought it was a most unfortunate speech. In the first place, he began by using figures in a way quite misleading as to the actual position. He said that Service Estimates this year were for nearly £1,700 million; that we could not afford it, and so on. I have already said to-night that we are facing an abnormal year. The White Paper itself shows that £576 million of that sum is in respect of terminal and non-recurring charges. If one takes into consideration the fact that the number of men will decline throughout the year, it will be seen that at the end of the Financial Year the annual rate of expenditure then operating will be far below the total figure actually shown in the White Paper. Therefore, much of the hon. Gentleman's subsequent argument falls to the ground.
  As one of those who has just as much claim as others to stand for Labour and

  291
  Socialism and the defence of the worker, I must say I do not much like an attack upon the Government from behind, as if they were selling the whole of their principles. I like to speak my mind. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead said we should not be gluttons about the fruits of victory. I do not think this Government or, indeed, the preceding Government, can be charged with being gluttons about the fruits of victory. It is this country' which has made it abundantly clear that it would no seek an inch of territory in any part of the world. The same cannot be said about other Powers. I think one ought to be quite sure before making that kind of change. He said we had no foreign policy. On the contrary, our foreign policy is quite clear. We stand firmly for the principles of the Atlantic Charter, the Four Freedoms, the full support of the United Nations Organisation, the establishment of legal protection for the sovereignty and freedom of all the members of the organisation with equal right. That is our foreign policy, and I must say that the references in columns 116 and 117; of Hansard to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were unworthy and not justified by the facts. I am proud of the record of my right hon. Friend, with his joint association with me in Bristol, in what he has done in his life both for Labour and for the cause of peace. That record will Dear examination with that of anybody who sits on the Government side of the House.
  What is his position? He has supported to the hilt the 20 years Treaty—the Anglo-Soviet Treaty. Only a few days ago in this House he offered to extend that Treaty for another period of 30 years. By some strange accident, the censored Press of the U.S.S.R. has not even yet informed its people of this fact. He stated also that, so far as he knew, there was no single reason whatever why we should ever go to war with the U.S.S.R., and I am sure that is the view of my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
  Mr. Eden: And on this side.
  Mr. Alexander: I believe it is common in the House. When we talk about the need for agreement with the U.S.S.R. — and we are all agreed that that is essential —I think we are entitled to say that
  292
  agreements can only be made effective if they are really two-way agreements assented to freely by both sides, and it must involve the full exchange of views and adjustments of points of view. I hope it is not to be suggested from any quarter of the House that in that adjustment it must always mean the capitulation of the social democrats.
  The last point I come to is that which was raised concerning the main purpose that we shall have in the next few months in deciding what our permanent defence organisation shall be. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, because he has saved me a good deal of the time that I had anticipated giving to the question, by giving a perfectly accurate summary and appraisement of the developments which took place during the course of the war in setting up what was growing every day in its integration—staff, planning, research, intelligence and operational control—an integration which we had never before reached and without which I do not believe we could ever have held our position during those long years of struggle for freedom. I can assure him that it is, of course, necessary to approach the question of the peacetime organisation in relation to political controls and demands upon different Ministries and in the need for looking for economies wherever they can be effected, provided they do not destroy the efficiency and permanence of an organisation which will certainly be needed in this country if we are to be effective in our advice, through the United Nations Organisation, to the military staffs committee of that organisation.
  I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that the joint staffs system to which he referred will, I am certain, be promoted, consolidated and maintained by the Prime Minister, who is still the Minister of Defence. The Prime Minister explained yesterday broadly what the present situation was and the inquiries which he is actively pursuing with regard to the future. The right hon. Gentleman can also be assured that we will take account of the views of all those who have had inside technical and professional experience and knowledge in the course of the war. I do not think we shall need advice from people who have not been in touch for a long time. I appreciated the references made to the prewar position of the

  293
  Committee of Imperial Defence, which, through its sub-organisations, its subcommittees and its organising of the effectiveness of the civilian Departments which would have to do jobs in wartime, organised the nation for war. During this last war there was set up a smaller committee, namely, the Defence Committee, which called in the experts as required, which still established an organisation effectively to integrate the civilian Departments of State. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that that is all being taken into account. I cannot say more than that, because obviously when the time comes it will be for the Prime Minister himself to arrive at the final decision that we shall recommend to the executive Government, which will afterwards be submitted to the House.
  I think the Government have no reason to complain of the Debate in the last two days. I think that practically all hon. Members who have taken part have endeavoured to be critical upon a constructive plane, and many of the points that have been raised, such as the future of the cadet forces and certain classes of training, might well be raised upon the Service Estimates.
  Sir A. Salter Sir A. Salter rose—
  Mr. Alexander: I see the right hon. Gentleman opposite looks as if he is about to ask if I am going to answer the matters he raised. May I say that they will be taken fully into account in the inquiries on the higher defence organisation, of which I have been speaking?
  Sir A. Salter: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that the Debates which took place before the war on that subject are carefully examined with the documents. It his advisers have any difficulties I shall be very glad to give him copies.
  Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I have seen some of them already. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that. If my promise holds good they will all be taken into account. In conclusion, may I say that nobody will be better pleased than the Government and their supporters on this side of the House if there were such progress at the peace conference to be held this year, and such improvement in conditions in certain
  294
  countries, that we could reduce our Forces thereby. There will never be any effort wanted on the part of His Majesty's Government to that end. I feel sure the House as a whole will support us in trying to set up a permanent system that will prevent war rather than seek to establish the winning of a war.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  " That this House approves the Statement relating to Defence (Cmd. 6743)."

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendment.
  Ordered: "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly.
  CLAUSE 3.— (Supplementary provisions as to Orders.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 6, leave out from "that" to "without" in line 7, and insert:
  ("an Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order in Council be annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken there under after the date of the resolution, and His Majesty may by Order in Council revoke the Order, so, however, that any such resolution and revocation shall be ").
  9.16 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I do not know whether the House would like a word of explanation as to the purport and effect of the Amendment; it is rather technical in nature, but I will endeavour to put it in a word. The Bill provided for the transfer of functions by Order in Council. Clause 3, Subsection (2) of the Bill subjected those Orders in Council to negative resolution procedure. Subsection (2) was drawn in the habitual form, and provided that the House could resolve to annul an Order in Council made by His Majesty for the purpose of the Bill. It was suggested during. the course of the Debate on the Report stage in this House that that form of wording was constitutionally improper and indecorous, in that

  295
  His Majesty himself should, when he made an Order in Council, be in a position to revoke or annul the Order, and that it was not proper that the House should resolve automatically ipso facto that an Order in Council made by His Majesty should be null and void. That was he first comment upon the form of words used.
  The second comment made was that if an Order in Council was made, and if it was revoked by a Resolution of this House, there would not appear in the Statutory Rules and Orders volume any record of the revocation of the Order. There would be no subsequent Order by His Majesty in Council revoking the first Order, and it was pointed out that that would probably lead to considerable inconvenience, because the people concerned would not have any means of knowing that the first Order had been revoked unless they searched through the volumes of Hansard and discovered that a prayer had been accepted in the House to annul the Order. The Amendment which has been made in another place, and which I ask the House to agree to, is an Amendment which remedies both those criticisms. It provides that if the House desires that an Order in Council shall be annulled, it shall resolve that an Address to that effect shall be presented to His Majesty, and that no further proceedings shall be taken under the Order when that Address has gone from this House. I ask the House, in those circumstances, to say that the Amendment meets both the criticisms, and to accept it.
  9.19 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I have no hesitation in saying that we on this side of the House will accept the Amendment, if for no other reason than that it covers exactly the same point as the one I moved in the House on 8th February. It is. a sad thing for the learned Solicitor-General to have to eat his own words, because on that occasion he not only said that the point had little substance, but that he was very sorry he could not possibly accept it in this Bill. I do not mind who eats what, so long as we get our way. A little reflection after the Bill left this House prompted the Government to put this Amendment down in another place, once more showing the utility of the revising Chamber. As we
  296
  now have the Bill in a form which, the learned Solicitor-General says, is constitutionally more decorous and makes it more easy for those who want to find out what the ultimate end of a particular Order in Council is, and whether it is or is not on the Statute Book, we shall be very glad to accept this Amendment. 1 hope that on future occasions our Amendments will be accepted in this House, instead of being moved by the Government and adopted by them elsewhere.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Bowles: I think I can say, following the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), that we on this side will accept the Amendment, too. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he put down the Amendment. He did, of course; but if he looks at the speech I made on Second Reading I think he will agree 1 was the person who first raised this question. I had not the courage, and he had, to put down an Amendment. I said this, though, that 1 thought a certain amount of abrogation—not supplication—was not a bad thing in the House today. But I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is a very good proposal on the part of the Government. I should like to know whether the learned Solicitor-General can give an undertaking that this form of reversing an Order in Council will appear in all future Bills; not only in this one, but in others as well, because, I think, we have established here a good case, and the Lord Chancellor in another place recently made a very strong case for it, too, with the assistance of other Noble Lords. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will say that this will now be a precedent for the future.
  9.21 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: As I was the third Member of the House who took the same view as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), I want to say, as I said on a previous occasion, that we are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. the Member for Nuneaton for his support in this matter. This is not really a party matter. It affects the House of Commons. I ask the Solicitor-General and the Leader of the House who, at this moment is engaged in an intimate conversation

  297
  with him—[Interruption.]—I did not catch what he was actually saying. We do not wish in this matter to be unduly triumphant over him or the Solicitor-General. We have been very merciful to the Government. We have pointed out that this is a volte face from their previous attitude. We do not wish to triumph over them because we hope they will be encouraged to take a more House of Commons view of their duty towards this House.
  9.22 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General:May I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles)? It would be out of Order to refer to future legislation, but, obviously the Amendment that has been made will have its repercussions outside the terms of this Bill. I am grateful for the dainty meal I am offered, because the Amendment put down by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gateshead— [Laughter.]
  Captain Crookshank: Not Gateshead, please.
  The Solicitor-General:I apologise to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and also to the-hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus). But the Amendment which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put down was in a wholly impossible form, and could not have been accepted in the form in which it was put down on the Order Paper. But subject to that I am glad to accept the dainty meal he has put before me, and I approach it with a good appetite.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ESTIMATES
  Select Committee appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein.
  To consist of Twenty-eight Members.
  Mr. Alexander Anderson, Mr. Barton, Mr. Benson, Lieut.-Colonel Nigel Birch, Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Champion, Viscountess Davidson, Mr. Ernest Davies, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Douglas, Sir Ralph
  298
  Glyn, Professor Gruffyd, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Mr. Howard, Wing-Commander Hulbert, Lieut.-Colonel Lipton, Captain Sir Peter Macdonald, Brigadier Medlicott, Mr. Mikardo, Flight-Lieutenant Parkin, Sir Frank Sanderson, Lieut.-Colonel Sharp, Mr. Norman Smith, Mr. Thurtle, Sir Harold Webbe. Mr. William Wells, Mr. Frederick Willey and Mr. Willis.
  Seven to be the Quorum.
  Power to send for persons, papers and records, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.
  Power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the subjects referred to the Committee; any Sub-Committee so appointed to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and the Quorum of any Sub-Committee so appointed to be Four.
  Power to report from time to time. —[Mr. Mathers.]

  CYPRIOT TRADE UNIONISTS (IMPRISONMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Mathers.]
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Solley: I have to call the attention of the House to recent events in Cyprus of the utmost gravity, and, indeed, I do not think that I exaggerate when I say that the matters to which I shall have to refer are such as will shock the conscience of every true democrat. I did, in fact, raise the matter originally in a Question which I put to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 30th January, 1946. The Question was as follows:
  " Whether he is aware that the law under which the 18 members of the Pan-Cyprian trade union committee were recently sentenced to imprisonment is Fascist and anti-working class in its character; that the substance of the evidence against these trade unionists was that they were engaged in publicising the classic works of Socialism; and whether he will take immediate steps to free these trade unionists and alter the law so that it conforms to Socialist principles; and remove from office all those officials who were primarily responsible for instigating this prosecution."

  299
  My hon. Friend replied in writing:
  "I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of the sections of the law under which these persons were charged and convicted nor do I see any grounds for amending this legislation. I have not yet seen the record of the trial and I am therefore unable to comment on the second part of the Question. As regards the third and fourth parts of the Question, I am not prepared on the facts before me at this stage to assume that the persons responsible for instituting the prosecution acted otherwise than in accordance with their high sense of duty."—[OFFICIAL Report, 30th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 228–9.]
  The facts are that after a trial of 34 days, on 21st January of this year the entire leadership of the Cypriot trade union movement, in fact the entire leadership of the labour movement in Cyprus, was sentenced to imprisonment. Some received a sentence of 18 months, and others received a sentence of 12 months. They were found guilty of being members of a so-called unlawful association, namely, the Cypriot equivalent to our T.U.C. —the Pan-Cyprian trade union committee. The importance of that Committee in the labour movement in Cyprus cannot be exaggerated, and I would prefer, in this respect, to give the words of the judge who presided at the trial, so that it cannot be charged against me that I am exaggerating the seriousness of the situation with which we are faced. The judge said this:
  "It is admitted that the Pan-Cyprian trade unions committee is the highest directive body and is entrusted with the leadership and co-ordination of the activities of all trade unions throughout Cyprus. It is the supreme body with branches in each district. In fact most of the work of the trade unions in the districts is done under the guidance and through the Pan-Cyprian trade unions committee."
  We find that the entire leadership—18 members of this Committee—are now in prison. It would be beyond the limits of the time which I have at my disposal to give the detailed background of this matter. It is sufficient to state that the naked despotism that obtained in Cyprus from 1931 onwards was such as to make legal trade unions and political activities at the beginning of 1931 quite impossible.
  As time developed, in spite of the deliberate obstruction of the Colonial Office through its local officials, trade union activity began to evolve, and with the coming of the war a change of policy, superficial at all events, was put through in Cyprus. Consequently, the trade union
  300
  movement, having been given its head for a short time, developed with enormous rapidity, so much so that at the Pan-Cyprian conference of trade unionists, which was held in September,1944, there was an attendance of 435 delegates, representing 13,500 trade unionists. It was at that meeting that this particular committee, every member of which is now in goal, was formed. The Government knew of its existence. There was no question of that kind in the trial. In fact, the Government had certain official relations with it. Indeed, in January, 1945, they afforded every facility to the delegate of the committee to the World Trade Union Congress to leave Cyprus.
  The war being over, apparently the Colonial Office thought the time was ripe to clamp down on these trade union and labour activities, and go back to their despotism of 1931. They raided the offices of this Greek T.U.C, and obtained a certain amount of literature, which was no more lurid or dull than that which can be bought in England in any Socialist bookshop. They then began this prosecution. The trial began on 17th December, 1945. It was not, of course, a trial by jury for the very obvious reasons that the Colonial Office could never obtain a jury of Cypriots who would find their com patriots guilty of this kind of offence. It is not surprising that this elementary rule of democracy did not and does not obtain in this Colony. The indictment is in the form of a document and contains some 17 counts. I have not got the time to go into it, and I venture to suggest it does not matter having regard to what I have to say about the law, so called, in Cyprus, but I think I can give the substance of the indictment. The defendants were charged, in effect, with using this T.U.C. as a means of propagating ideas which it was suggested were such as to arouse ill- will and hatred against the Cyprus Government and encourage its overthrow by force.
  Mr. Marlowe Mr. Marlowe (Brighton) rose—
  Mr. Solley: I really have not time
  Mr. Marlowe: As the hon. Gentleman has raised a question of a trial, perhaps. he will state whether there is to be an appeal.
  Mr. Solley: I am glad this question has been asked, because as a lawyer I took

  301
  care to find out that the matter was not sub judice. I will come to the question of appeal in a moment. I would like to comment upon the substance of the charge made against the defendants. Firstly, it does seem to me that it will be difficult to imagine any honest, patriotic Cypriot not feeling hatred against the foreign Government under which he has had to suffer all his life, and, indeed, it would be difficult to imagine why he would not seek to overthrow that Government with any means at his disposal. However, that is not really the point at issue. What is at issue is that the evidence, in my submission, did not support the charge. In any event the charge was brought under law in respect of which the Cypriots had no part in the making. It is one thing to say to an Englishman '' Whether you like it or not Parliament has ordained that this shall be an offence," but it is another thing when a dictatorship says "Such and such is our conception of the law and order. Break it at your peril and we will call you a criminal." That is the sort of thing we have had from Franco in Spain and from Hitler, and indeed is the sort of thing we have had in this country in the case of the Tolpuddle martyrs, because in every case where representatives of the working class are attacked it is claimed that that is done in the interests of law and order.
  But the matter does not rest there. Is it not an extraordinary commentary upon the dictatorsip which the Cypriot people are experiencing that even if the allegations are true these trade unionists should have had to have committed so-called criminal offences in order to carry out their trade union duties? We could have no greater indictment against the law in Cyprus as it stands. If one looks at the evidence which is supposed to have supported these allegations, it will be found in a series of extracts of documents which the police discovered at the headquarters of the Cyprus Trade Union Committee. I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the extracts upon which the prosecution based their case. For instance, here is an extract from a document headed "Lessons on the Political Organisation of the Working Class ":
  " At a particular stage in the struggle of the working class it is realised that the real welfare of the whole world can be brought about only in the change in the existing
  302
  regime. It is then that the Labour movement which starts to embrace Socialism and to direct its efforts towards the application of that system."
  It is a fantastic state of affairs when Labour rules at Westminster, and Socialism is a crime according to the law of Cyprus. Considerable comments were made at the trial about Marxism. [Laughter.] It is all very well for Members opposite to laugh, but when we were discussing freedom, a little while ago, for people to indulge in Fascist activity they said that that was necessary in a democratic State, and they cannot now logically argue that you cannot give the same rights to the Marxist. In order to show the political nature of this trial I propose to give a quotation from the exchange of questions and answers between the President of the Court and the Solicitor-General of Cyprus:
  " President: Is Marxist theory a crime?
  Solicitor-General: According to Cyprus law, yes.
  President: Is the possession of Marxist books a crime?
  Solicitor-General: Yes."
  When I read that I had in mind the Nazi bonfires of books which they did not like. But British Imperialism—and the Labour Party are not responsible; this is the baby we have taken over—moves in a more subtle, and more hypocritical, way. It merely creates the laws which make bonfires legal. Time is short, and I am unable to go into details, but I would like to say a last word as to the method of the trial. It was without a jury. Application for leave to appeal was made, but quite contrary to English legal practice that application was not heard. It was decided in the chambers of the judge of the Supreme Court, without any appellants being present in order to press the case. It was refused, and, in my submission—and I speak with some experience of this kind of case—an application of that kind would never have been refused in the Court of Criminal Appeal in this country.
  There can be only one answer to the matters I am putting before my hon. Friend the Under Secretary. We are a Socialist Government, and we dare not see our Socialist and working-class comrades in Cyprus in goal for doing something which a dictatorship law has declared to be illegal. We must see that

  303
  they are released immediately, and I shall test any answer from the Government, no matter how subtle it may be —
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is open to the persons who have been prosecuted in this case to appeal to the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court. That being so, I respectfully submit that according to Paragraph 155 on page 143 of the Manual of Procedure, in which it says that a Member must not refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, the whole matter is sub judice.
  Mr. Speaker: The appeal has not begun, and until it has begun this matter is not sub judice.
  Mr. Solley: I should like to finish on this note. This is not a new matter to the Socialist Labour Party. As long ago as 1919, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald raised the problem at the International Socialist Congress in Switzerland, and in this connection the "Daily Herald" printed on 25th January of that year:
  " For nearly forty years we have obstinately refused to grant self-government to its inhabitants. We have turned a deaf ear to this plea. Today they are repeating that plea. It is up to our Government to give them the freedom they ask "
  Five years later Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, then Prime Minister, in reply to a question in this House, said that His Majesty's Government were not contemplating any change in the political status of Cyprus. I plead with our Labour Government not to follow the example of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.
  Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Will the hon. Member explain whether it is the case that the whole of the trade union leaders have been imprisoned, because "subsequent to this there were serious strikes?
  9.43 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I regret that through the indisposition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State he is unable to reply to the Debate. I regret further that I have had such short notice in which to prepare a reply. I should like to point out that the charges made against the trade union leaders concerned were
  304
  charges which were made under Sections 46, 60 and 61 of the Criminal Code in Cyprus, which is precisely similar to the law of this country. So there can be no suggestion that this is a law of a particularly onerous kind. It is the law of this country which is the basis of the law of sedition in Cyprus. I regret the rather intemperate language my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) used. These prosecutions are not matters for the Colonial Office, but are matters within the jurisdiction and administration of the local authorities It is they who in this case initiated these prosecutions and it is the local courts which are entirely responsible for the sentences which have been described.
  I should like also to point out that there is no suggestion that trade union activity in Cyprus is discouraged. There are in Cyprus today no fewer than 122 registered trade unions. In recent years, every encouragement has been given by the local Government to the building-up of sound trade union organisation, and practical assistance has been given for securing better industrial relations in the island. Therefore, I must dispose of the two charges that have been made—that the Colonial Office have clamped down, as it has been described by my hon. Friend, on the trade union movement and gone back to the despotism of prewar days, and that somehow or other some sinister influence has been at work to destroy trade unionism in Cyprus at the instance of the Colonial Office. Those statements are grossly untrue and unfair.
  In this case, as I understand the position, it was revealed to the authorities in Cyprus that there was a quantity of seditious and inflammatory written material which was being circulated, secretly and illegally, by the persons who were charged in this case, and that the documents included directions for inciting the people to seditious activities. Indeed, the charges were, briefly, the encouragement by propaganda of the overthrow of the Constitution of Cyprus by revolution, the overthrow by violence of the established Government of Cyprus, and the overthrow by violence of organised government, and that there was seditious intention to excite disaffection and to procure the alteration of the law otherwise than by lawful means.
  We have to keep in mind that there was a very long trial and that the court held

  305
  that a number of the charges were established. As a result, 12 men were sentenced to 18 months, and six to 12 months. When a request was made from the assize court to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, no legal ground could be found to sustain an appeal, and therefore, it was refused. I cannot tonight read to the House the details of the charges which were made against these men. The charges were set out pretty fully in the charge sheets, but I think it would be misleading the House if it were said that these charges were composed almost entirely of extracts from Socialist writings. They go very much further than that.
  Those are the facts, and it is not for me to justify the prosecution or to justify the sentences that have been imposed. Those are the findings of the court, and, as far as I know, no one has seriously challenged the integrity of the court in the judgment that was reached. On the facts before me, I cannot see any case for an
  306
  alteration of the law The law is vindicated by the state of things which was revealed during the prosecution.
  I conclude by saying that, obviously, all of us are disturbed by prosecutions of this kind. I am the last person in the world to accept without resistance anything in the nature of an attack upon civil liberty. In this House 1 have always fought hard for the maintenance in our Colonial regions of the highest standards of British justice and administration. I can only say that my right hon. Friend will again, in the light of this case, examine all the facts, and that if there Is a case for modification of the law or adjustment of the legal processes, he will make inquiries and seek advice as to what can be done.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to Ten o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  B.A.O.R. (Educational Courses)
  B.A.O.R. (Educational Courses)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  C.A.S.(B.) Administration, Upper Burma
  C.A.S.(B.) Administration, Upper Burma
  Ammunition Dumps, Surrey
  Ammunition Dumps, Surrey
  Python Scheme
  Python Scheme
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Owners of One-Man Businesses (Compassionate Release)
  Owners of One-Man Businesses (Compassionate Release)
  Regular Establishment Figures
  Regular Establishment Figures
  Ammunition Dump, Kippen, Stirlingshire
  Ammunition Dump, Kippen, Stirlingshire
  Polish Second Corps
  Polish Second Corps
  Pioneer Corps (Release of Aliens)
  Pioneer Corps (Release of Aliens)
  Hutments, Eastcote
  Hutments, Eastcote
  W.T.C.. Instow (Establishment)
  W.T.C.. Instow (Establishment)
  School of Music, Aldershot (Bandmasters' Uniforms)
  School of Music, Aldershot (Bandmasters' Uniforms)
  Courts Martial (Sentences)
  Courts Martial (Sentences)
  War Department, Northern Ireland (Civilian Workers)
  War Department, Northern Ireland (Civilian Workers)
  Polish Forces, Scotland (Travel Restriction)
  Polish Forces, Scotland (Travel Restriction)
  West Africa Command, Sierra Leone (Armourers)
  West Africa Command, Sierra Leone (Armourers)
  R.A.S.C. Officers (Shortage)
  R.A.S.C. Officers (Shortage)
  Detention Institutions
  Detention Institutions
  Age and Service Groups
  Age and Service Groups
  N.A.A.F.I. (Stocks)
  N.A.A.F.I. (Stocks)
  Donington Park Ordnance Depot
  Donington Park Ordnance Depot
  Berrington Park Camp
  Berrington Park Camp
  Long Service
  Long Service
  Northallerton Barracks (Disturbances)
  Northallerton Barracks (Disturbances)
  C.O.D. Bicester
  C.O.D. Bicester
  Marriages (German and Austrian Women)
  Marriages (German and Austrian Women)
  Singapore (Changi Barracks)
  Singapore (Changi Barracks)
  A.A. Site, Neath
  A.A. Site, Neath
  Heavy Engineering (Training)
  Heavy Engineering (Training)
PRISONERS OF WAR
  Rates of Working Pay
  Rates of Working Pay
  Repatriated Germans (Rationed Goods)
  Repatriated Germans (Rationed Goods)
  Farm Workers
  Farm Workers
  Rations
  Rations
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Coloured Personnel
  Coloured Personnel
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
ROYAL NAVY
  Clothing Maintenance
  Clothing Maintenance
  Engineer-in-Chief' s Department (Foremen)
  Engineer-in-Chief' s Department (Foremen)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Brickworks (Reopening)
  Brickworks (Reopening)
  House of Commons Rebuilding (Screen)
  House of Commons Rebuilding (Screen)
  Brickmaking Industry (Recruitment Scheme)
  Brickmaking Industry (Recruitment Scheme)
  Temporary Houses (Output)
  Temporary Houses (Output)
  Building Operatives (Public Authorities)
  Building Operatives (Public Authorities)
  Plumbing Units (Prestwick Factory)
  Plumbing Units (Prestwick Factory)
  Statues (Repair)
  Statues (Repair)
  Requisitioned Property
  Requisitioned Property
COAL INDUSTRY
  Trade Union Membership
  Trade Union Membership
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
FUEL AND POWER
  Waste Industrial Heat
  Waste Industrial Heat
  Electricity Commissioners (Resignations)
  Electricity Commissioners (Resignations)
  Domestic Coal Supplies
  Domestic Coal Supplies
  Electric Cookers (Rural Areas)
  Electric Cookers (Rural Areas)
  Wood Dump, Dudbridge
  Wood Dump, Dudbridge
  MILITARY SERVICE (CALL-UP, AGE LIMIT)
  MILITARY SERVICE (CALL-UP, AGE LIMIT)
EMPLOYMENT
  Mine Ballotees (Release)
  Mine Ballotees (Release)
  National Institute of House Workers
  National Institute of House Workers
  Wallasey
  Wallasey
  Further Education and Training
  Further Education and Training
DEMOBILISATION
  Release Groups
  Release Groups
  Wartime Graduates
  Wartime Graduates
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Whisky (Exports to U.S.)
  Whisky (Exports to U.S.)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  War Damage Payments
  War Damage Payments
  CIVIL SERVICE LIST
  CIVIL SERVICE LIST
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (CIVIL PRODUCTION)
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (CIVIL PRODUCTION)
  PAPER SUPPLY (BIBLES)
  PAPER SUPPLY (BIBLES)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old Age Pensioners (Wireless Licences)
  Old Age Pensioners (Wireless Licences)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  WAR DAMAGED GOODS (CLAIMS ASSESSMENT)
  WAR DAMAGED GOODS (CLAIMS ASSESSMENT)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (DERATING)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (DERATING)
HOUSING
  Allhallows, Kent
  Allhallows, Kent
  Cost
  Cost
  Rents
  Rents
SCOTLAND
  Requisitioned Property
  Requisitioned Property
  Housing
  Housing
  Building Industry (Manpower)
  Building Industry (Manpower)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Compulsory Land Purchase, Jarrow
  Compulsory Land Purchase, Jarrow
  Planetarium, London (Site)
  Planetarium, London (Site)
  REGISTERED AUSTRIAN DOCTORS
  REGISTERED AUSTRIAN DOCTORS
  YUGOSLAVIA (REFUGEES)
  YUGOSLAVIA (REFUGEES)
  MELIK CAMP (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  MELIK CAMP (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  INDIA (DISTURBANCES. DAMAGE LIABILITY)
  INDIA (DISTURBANCES. DAMAGE LIABILITY)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers.
The Lord Manners—Took the Oath.
The Lord Rayleigh—Took the Oath.

ASSISTED MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords I have a statement which I hope your Lordships will allow me to make. Arrangements have recently been agreed with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia for the assisted migration of suitable British subjects who desire to settle in Australia, and whom the Australian Government are willing to receive.
These arrangements, which will operate only so long as favourable conditions for settlement in Australia are known to exist, deal respectively with:

(a) the grant of free passages to suitable British men and women who were resident in the British Isles or were in the United Kingdom Forces overseas on September 1, 1938, and have served in a whole-time capacity in the Armed Forces or Merchant Navy of the United Kingdom during the period of the recent war, and their dependants;

(b) a scheme under the authority of the Empire Settlement Acts of 1922 and 1937 for passage assistance to approved migrants and their dependants, who are normally resident in the United Kingdom and who do not come within the scope of the free passage scheme. Persons of 19 years of age and over will be required to contribute £10, and juveniles of 14 to 18 years of age £5, towards the cost of a passage, the remainder of the cost, including free passages for children under 14 years
1066
of age, being borne equally by the United Kingdom and Australian Governments.

The announcement of these schemes, which will come into operation on a date to be agreed upon by the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments, does not imply that ships will now be freely available to take migrants to Australia. The existing shortage of passenger accommodation is likely to continue for some considerable time.
Applicants under these arrangements will have to be accepted by the Commonwealth authorities as medically fit and otherwise suitable for settlement in Australia. Men and women who were released from the Forces for work of civilian importance, including those released in Class B, may require the permission of the Ministry of Labour and National Service to leave their employment in the United Kingdom before they can be granted free passages under scheme (a). It will be open to the Ministry of Labour and National Service to withhold approval to the grant of assisted passages under scheme (b) in the case men and women possessing certain qualifications, who are in short supply here and urgently needed in the interests of the United Kingdom.
The Commonwealth Government will provide free transport from the port of disembarkation to the settler's destination in Australia, and accommodation for a limited period if necessary. They will arrange for co-operation with the appropriate authorities in Australia for the reception, placement and aftercare in Australia of the settlers approved under these schemes, who will also be eligible for certain social service benefits as from the date of arrival in Australia.
Settlers under these schemes will not normally obtain employment with individual employers until after their arrival in Australia but a settler will not receive a free passage unless there is a reasonable assurance that he will obtain employment on arrival. The settlers will have at their disposal the facilities of the Common wealth Employment Service but will not be eligible for the employment preference now granted for a period of seven years, to Australian ex-Service men, under the Commonwealth Act, No. II, of 1945.

1067
Until the date on which the schemes are opened, no applications can be received, but leaflets giving fuller particulars will be available at all local offices (including Resettlement Advice Offices) and Regional Appointments Offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service of Great Britain. This Department will be responsible for administering the free passage scheme in detail jointly with the office of the High Commissioner for Australia, Australia House, Strand, W.C.2. The leaflets will also be available at local offices of the Ministry of Labour of Northern Ireland and similar information will be circulated by the Service Departments for the information of men and women still in the Forces.
The Dominions Office will remain responsible for all matters of policy relating to migration to the Dominions, including the negotiation of agreements with overseas Governments, and voluntary societies operating overseas.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure the whole House has heard with great satisfaction this fresh example of co-operation between the Australian Government and this country. I would like to ask the Secretary of State one question on it, namely, how long he thinks it will be before this scheme comes into operation.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for asking me that question. Owing to the shortage of shipping and other obvious difficulties, I do not think that it will be possible to bring the scheme into operation before, or much before, the end of the year.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (PLOUGHING UP OF LAND) BILL.
2.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, this is a very short Bill and, with your Lordships' permission I will make only a short speech in introducing it. In view of the extremely serious position in regard to food, instead of reducing our tillage area this year, we have to aim at
1068
getting at least the same tillage area both in 1946 and 1947 as we had in 1944 and, in fact, if possible, we would like to increase it. This will mean that some land which farmers had intended to retain under temporary grass this year must be ploughed up, if necessary by compulsion. It is, therefore, intended to seek powers in this Bill to extend the ploughing-up grant of£2 per acre, which up to the present has been limited to seven-year and older grassland, and this is now to apply to three-year leys and to older grass. That is to say, that any land ploughed up after February 5, 1946, which was under grass on or before February 5, 1943, or even land which was already sown for grass at any time during the year 1943, would be eligible for this grant.
No farmer need wait to plough up until he hears from his district committee or district officer. Farmers should notify their committees of any land which has been ploughed up since February 5, or which is intended to be ploughed up, and which appears to be eligible for the new grant. Committees will then satisfy themselves of the eligibility of the land for grant. Tenants will be safeguarded by the issue of directions to plough up against any penalties for ploughing up imposed by the terms of their leases. The Government feel that this is a necessary step to meet the present crisis. I hope that this will prove to be a non-controversial Bill, and that it may pass through your Lordships' House as speedily as possible. For those reasons I commend this Bill to your Lordships and move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not intend to speak at any length on the Second Reading of this measure. It is a Bill that, obviously, has got to be passed. It is a Bill which is necessary owing to circumstances about which there is no need to talk at the present time. But I am sure that I am speaking for a number of my noble friends here when I say that there must be Amendments to the Bill at a later date. A number of us feel, for instance, that the £2 subsidy per acre should not start on February 5, but should start in July of last year. This is our reason: by giving the subsidy after February 5

1069
what you are in fact doing is giving a subsidy to the farmers who had not the forethought to plough last autumn, or were not patriotic enough to plough their leys when it was obvious to everyone that we should need more wheat. I do not know if this is to be embodied in a Privilege Amendment, but I do know that a number of us here feel that the good farmer should not be mulcted at the expense of the bad farmer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUTURE OF AIR TRAINING CORPS.
2.50 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEYhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make any statement on the present numbers and progress of the An Training Corps and on their policy regarding the future of the Air Training Corps; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not, I hope, detain your Lordships for any great length of time, but I am speaking to the converted when I suggest that one of the finest institutions we had for the first few years of the war was the A.T.C. I should say that at the peak period there were 170,000 youths attached to the A.T.C. in this country. I do know, at any rate, that in Yorkshire we had at the peak some 30,000 youths in the Corps. They were all enthusiastic, and they had equally enthusiastic officers, working on a voluntary basis, doing their best to make not only the members of the A.T.C. air-minded but also their mothers and fathers and other citizens. Everything was going absolutely grand, but the position was affected by the policy of the National Government. May I say here that I do not blame the ex-Secretary of State, nor the two Under-Secretaries both of whom are now members of this House. But the two Under-Secretaries had, as it were, to act the part of wicked uncles, and some of the youths instead of being directed into the R.A.F., owing to the exigencies of the war situation, were directed into the Army. In passing I might say that, so far as I know, this was taken with a pretty good grace, though it was felt that this was a shrewd blow when the future of the A.T.C. was to be considered.
1070
The Air Ministry got the idea that the A.T.C. did not need a lot of money. The per capita grant was small—in fact it was rather mean—but so impressed were men and women possessed of money that they looked upon it as a good investment to see that the Air Training Corps did not lack for the sinews of war so far as money was concerned; so much so that when the Secretary of State for Air was approached for money we were not very successful in getting it. I say that it was looked upon as an investment. There are many of your Lordships who know even more about the inside working of the A.T.C. than I do, but you saw growing before your eyes not a pampered youth which had to be subsidized by all sorts of expedients in order that they could attach themselves to some youth movement, some club or another, but a youth movement being trained in self-discipline, which is one of the finest things anyone of us can possess. To be taught, as these boys were taught, integrity, honour and real leadership and various other qualities which go with self-discipline was proof to them that self-discipline was not a frigid code of "Thou shalt not" but something which was vital if they wished to make a great contribution to their day and generation. That was the A.T.C. from 1940 to, say, 1944.
Now we find there has been a shrinkage and I ask my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air if he can give us some figures for to-day. I know that in Leeds, where not so long ago there were eleven vigorous units, there are to-day three units with a paper strength of eighty-five and an actual attendance of somewhere about a baker's dozen. This has been largely owing to the policy of the Air Council. I have no hesitation in laying this reproach—and I call it a reproach—at the door of those in King Charles's Street. I suppose that King Charles's Street has got a good reply and can say "This baby of yours is not ours at all, but the baby bequeathed to us by the War Cabinet of the war years." The A.T.C. is a precious possession of ours, but we can see this great voluntary organization, this magnificent feeder not only to the Royal Air Force but to the whole of civil aviation disintegrating before our eves. Now we are calling upon the Secretary of State and His Majesty's Government to see what they can do to help these boys

1071
to help themselves. Those of us who have the privilege of working in youth movements, whether attached to an approved school, a board school or Eton, know that if you can give a youth an objective you can have his enthusiastic support. But when there is simply a calling together of boys in an aimless sort of way, when there is no policy, that is the difficulty.
It is policy that we are asking for this afternoon, so that we can save this magnificent organization. We need this organization in the future even if it is only for the sake of real citizenship. That is why I am pleading with His Majesty's Government this afternoon to come forward with a policy. I believe there is going to be a new organization to begin some time in February. I do not know much about this, except that we have had the resignation of the Director-General. About a year ago the advisory committee was sacked and the chairman was sacked. If you wish to win the confidence of boys, and also of parents who sometimes think that there may be some military motive, which is utterly unfounded, behind it, you have got to have a strong civilian committee. I hope we shall be told that along with the appointment of a new Director-General we shall have a new civilian committee representative of the whole country. One or two of us can suggest the name of a chairman. It should be a useful body co-operating with the Air Council at the Air Ministry.
I know that we are getting busy with regard to Territorial Associations and I have heard a rumour, but only a rumour, that the A.T.C. is going to be incorporated with the Territorial Associations. That is all to the good. It will also he all to the good if we could have the Sea Cadets brought in from the coastal towns of the country and so make a trinity of the youth movements welded together into one, with perhaps one Minister of Defence when we weld the Armed Forces of the Crown under one Ministry. That is by the way, and I must not be controversial. What I want to see is, as has been suggested, a senior division for men of the Air Reserve and also a preparatory division for the younger boys, so that we can have a Commonwealth A.T.C. in active and close contact with those of our brothers across
1072
the seas who belong to the same family as we do. So I am asking that we shall have a target and some idea of what is going to be the recruitment in the future. The Secretary of State may be able to tell us what the ceiling of that recruitment is going to be. I do not know. What we want is an air objective and their you will find that what is now left will be saved. There will be a revival of interest if the boys have that objective.
The A.T.C., though of course the youngest of the three Forces, should not be looked upon as a Cinderella, and there should be a real Director of the A.T.C. One does like to have an ornamental head, I agree. The boys like to see him at football matches when he is shaking hands with the two "elevens," or something like that, but they want something more than a grand-looking gentleman in uniform. They want somebody who is going to revitalize them. They want a director to be a director, and to be able to guide them even to greater heights than those they attained in the past.
Very diffidently, therefore, I put forward this matter, and not simply to the Secretary of State. What I really do want, and what I should like to ask for, is the active and sympathetic co-operation of everybody concerned, in order that once more we shall have an A.T.C. in this country co-operating with similar bodies in the Commonwealth. I beg to move.
3.1 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I am only going to intervene for one moment to say on behalf of my noble friends that the greatest sympathy is extended to the Secretary of State and to the noble Lord who introduced this subject, and to give an assurance that we shall do everything we possibly can to help the Air Training Corps and the other cadet movements in the country to maintain the wonderful position that they achieved in the war. We all realize—I do not think this is controversial—that of necessity we must for some time have larger forces now that the war is concluded and in the next two or three years if we are to undertake not only our own obligations but our obligations in support of the United Nations Organization. If that is so, and if it be the position that a comparatively large

1073
number of people are brought into all three Forces, the Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, it is also probably true—I think noble Lords here will not deny this—that the length of service, if there is any addition to the regular Forces, cannot be of very long duration. It may be eighteen months; it may be two years; I am not going into that now. But whatever time it may be, I think the Secretary of State will agree it is going to be extraordinarily difficult to get young officers and non-commissioned officers in the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force in considerable numbers. It is almost impossible to make an officer in the short period which is contemplated, and therefore it must be of assistance to all three Services if we can keep a Cadet Service not only of the same standard which was achieved in the war, but of an even higher standard.
It is our desire that the boys, irrespective of the class of the community to which they belong, may "get on" on their merits, that they may achieve noncommissioned rank, with perhaps special facilities to enable them to reach commissioned rank in the near future. My humble opinion is that the Forces of the future are going to constitute a very considerable problem, and what we want to do is to get our young leaders immediately. For that reason I hope that the Secretary of State will encourage the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, by giving him a favourable reply. I can assure your Lordships that we, who saw the advantages of the Cadet Corps to' the three Services during the war, will give our full support to the Government in any measure they may take to strengthen these Forces, and to maintain them at as high a level as or an even higher level than that which was achieved during the war.
3.5 p.m.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lords who have spoken. As one of the Regional Commissioners of Civil Defence it was my duty to look after such things as E.W.S. tanks, and those little things which were so easily pilfered in shelters. From the year 1940, when the A.T.C. and other Cadet movements received considerable encouragement, the manners of the youngsters from 13 to 17 improved so much that they might have taken their motto not from Eton but from Winchester
1074
—"Manners makyth man." From 1940 certainly up to 1945 the whole character of these youngsters improved. They took a pride in their Corps, and the existence and encouragement of such organizations does appear to be part of the solution to the vexed question of volunteers or conscripts. I should like to add my humble support to what the other noble Lords, have already said.
3.8 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT STANSGATE): My Lords, first of all I should like to express my gratification for the amount of interest and sympathy which has been shown from all quarters of the House for the Air Training Corps. My noble friend who opened this debate spoke of the value of the A.T.C. as a part of the national youth movement. With that, of course, we all sympathize. He will excuse me if I direct myself more to the A.T.C. as it appears to the Royal Air Force, because my function here is to explain the relationship between the two organizations, what we hold it to be and what we hope to do to help. I should like also to thank my noble friend who moved this Motion, and other noble Lords in this House, for the spirited public work which they have done in many activities in relation to the A.T.C. I am going to deal with the funds of the organization in a moment, but State funds are naturally rather limited, and we have, necessarily, depended to a very considerable extent on the feeling of people that this was a good movement and that they were willing to make their private contributions to it.
Dealing with the organization of the A.T.C., as everybody knows we have our open units and our school units. We have the District Inspecting Officers, we have the Area Commanders, and then above that the Director-General of the A.T.C. We are now instituting a Reserve Command, and so my noble friend may expect to find certain changes made in this chain of organization. The Area Commands, will be absorbed in the Reserve Groups; and the place of the Director-General of the A.T.C. will be taken by the Commander-in-Chief of the Reserve Command. That will very much simplify things. It will pool together our Auxiliary and Reserve forces with the A.T.C.. and altogether I think will result in a marked improvement in the general organization.

1075
That brings me to the consideration of what my noble friend has said, not for the first time, about the wisdom of setting up an Advisory Council. I was under the impression that in recent years there had not been an Advisory Council, though my noble friend knows more about it than I do. If there had been, I would suggest that in the reorganization which I have described, it would be better to allow the A.T.C. to be linked up with the Territorial Army and Air Force Associations. It would be better to allow the County Territorial Associations to get this work done. It would seem hardly worth while to ask men of standing to give a great deal of time to an Advisory Council which would be dealing with only one facet of work the whole of which could more authoritatively and helpfully be dealt with by the Council of County Territorial Associations. That is all I have to say about the general organization of the Corps. If the particulars I give now appear to be rather detailed and pedestrian, I am sure those interested in this Corps will not complain, because it is on the little things that the success of local efforts may depend.
I do not know whether your Lordships would like me to describe the financial arrangements—they are probably familiar to you all. The State pays the rents and rates of unit headquarters; travelling expenses to courses, though not from home to duty; pay and allowances to officers and warrant officers at their training camps; and compensation for any injury that might unfortunately occur—in addition to providing training equipment, rations, uniform and the per capita grants for efficiency and proficiency. We have made a change this year which I hope will be of help to the units, which is that we are going to pay the entire cost of the provision or renting of accommodation direct from State funds. That, I think, should make the task of the unit organizers a great deal easier.
My noble friend asked me for particulars about strengths. He was kind enough to warn me in advance of the nature of his inquiry and I did have some figures got out. Of course the figures are not altogether comparable—the war has come to an end, for one thing. They are as follows: In October, 1944, we had 133,000 cadets, about 8,000 officers and approximately the same number of in-
1076
structors. On January 31 last year we had 116,000 cadets, and on January 31 this year—the most recent figures I have—we had 67,000 cadets and about 5,000 officers and 3,000 instructors. Of course, the decline is due partly to the termination of the war and partly to the diversion or return to other forms of activity of the public-spirited men who have been throwing their hearts into this work during the war.
The figures for recruiting are not discouraging. The latest figures I have are as follows: In the year ended January 31 last, 34,700 boys joined the Corps, and in the quarter ended January 31 last 6,250 joined the Corps. By that we are very much encouraged. As I have said, many men who have acted as instructors have, for example, been forced to go back to their other work. In passing I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a word of sincere thanks to those who have collie forward, without a great deal of public notice, to act as instructors in this Corps. I wish it were possible for them to have the Defence Medal, but there are terms laid down by the Honours and Awards Committee which preclude that. However, every means we can take to recognize the services both of officers and of instructors we certainly shall take, and I feel that they will know they have widespread and sincere public approval.
The thing that attracts people into the A.T.C. is, of course, flying. I do not want to say anything to annoy the noble Lord, Lord Croft, who was an officer in the Army, but in the Royal Air Force we feel we have something special which no other Service possesses. As Mr. Gladstone said, "You cannot fight against the future; time is on our side"—but that I will not elaborate. Of course the boys are interested in flying, but there is a snag in that to which I am going to come later. Flying is the great magnet we have in the A.T.C., and we are rearranging the number of aircraft and making them as plentiful as possible. There was an establishment called the Halton Flight which used to go about to various centres. We are going to have that split into small flights which will be distributed throughout the country, so that the boys shall have the best possible opportunity of getting passenger flights. The main idea of the boy who joins the A.T.C. is, of course, to fly, and if you cannot send him up in a powered machine you can at least send

1077
him up in a glider. The A.T.C., your Lordships may be surprised to learn, as indeed I was, is the largest gliding organization in the world. We have ninety gliding centres, and last year we had 6,000 cadets trained to the "high hop." The "high hop" means that you go up to 90 or 100 feet; the low hop merely means that people just start and do not go very far. During the year 200,000 glider launches were made.
We have been able to dispose of a certain amount of material from the Air Force as the war has come to an end, and we always have in mind how much is useful and may be made available to the Air Training Corps. We regret that we have not been able to give the boys greatcoats. As your Lordships know, a man leaves his greatcoat behind when he is demobilized, but what with the difficulties of reconditioning and the enormous demand for clothing, not only here but in a stricken Europe, the A.T.C. have not been able to get greatcoats, although we have made improvizations from time to time. I am sure my noble friend will agree that it is in sympathy and practical help that real encouragement is given. Another thing which we have done is to arrange for the Works Department to dismantle transport and re-erect hutments where possible. My noble friend also referred to the Dominions. I do not know that our contacts are very close, but by the exchange of literature and the distribution of news we are doing everything we can to maintain contact with the Dominion cadet organizations.
The point of all this really is: what are we going to use the A.T.C. for? It has, of course, its great value as a youth organization, but that is a much wider thing—the Board of Education comes into that. From our point of view, however, we want to encourage people to be air-minded and encourage the best possible recruits to join the Air Force when they are called up, or when they volunteer. All the boys would like to be assured that if they join the A.T.C. and do well they will become air-crew, but you cannot give that promise. The Air Force is a sort of pyramid: for the one man in the air you have a great organization, much broader based, supporting him. If for the present we aim, as we will aim, at a total establishment of 75,000 for the Air Training Corps,
1078
there is a reasonable hope that every boy who serves in it and so wishes will reach the R.A.F. Whether he will get air crew status or not one cannot say, because that will be a matter of hot competition. But if a boy puts his heart into the A.T.C., not only will he reach the R.A.F. but he will have done everything in his power—something considerable—to qualify him in the competition for the envied rank of a member of an air crew.
3.20 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I sincerely thank my noble friend for what he has said. He mentioned that the boys were covered in respect of injuries, but I want to say that at times his department, or some department connected with the Air Ministry, has been slack and sometimes payments have had to come out of private pockets because the money has not been forthcoming quickly enough. I was glad to hear what he said with regard to finding new and more interesting equipment from his works department and also that stock was being taken of stores which are now no longer needed by his department but which are of interest to the A.T.C. I note what he says with regard to the Central Civilian Advisory Council. If we can have County Associations I should say that what he suggests will fill the bill and take the place of the Central Committee which we used to have and which his Ministry sacked somewhere about 1944, I believe. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said and I am grateful to your Lordships for the interest you have displayed. These youths did very well in the past; their brothers are now growing up and will, I am certain, catch the spirit of sympathy displayed this afternoon and go forward to greater heights of service. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

B.O.A.C. AND SCOTTISH REPRESENTATIVES.
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY THE EARL OF ROSEBERY asked His Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the recent statement that the Government have always been anxious that Scotland should take its part in the operation of air ser-

1079
vices, Scottish representatives will be appointed as members of the Board of the British European Airways Corporation and the Board of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in asking the question which is down on the Paper to-day I will only detain your Lordships for a minute or two. First of all, I am quite sure your Lordships will acquit me of any discourtesy towards the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in asking this question in his absence. It was put down long before he left for New Zealand and whoever replies on behalf of His Majesty's Government will have had ample time to ascertain Lord Winster's views on this matter. It may be within the recollection of your Lordships that on February 14 last, in a speech here, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, announced that the Government had always been anxious that Scotland should take its part in the operation of air services. I am suggesting very small things for them to do to show how anxious they are for Scotland to take its part.
Your Lordships will remember that in the White Paper on British Air Services it was explained that the lay-out was as follows. The existing B.O.A.C. would have the routes between the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, the United States and the Far East; the British European Airways Corporation would have the routes between the United Kingdom and the Continent and the internal routes in the United Kingdom; and the British South American Airways Corporation would have the routes between the United Kingdom and South America. The routes of the last-mentioned Corporation do not pass through Scotland in any way and I am not asking for Scottish representation on it. B.O.A.C. has already used Prestwick, and if your Lordships remember, under my noble friend Viscount Swinton's proposal the European traffic to Scandinavia was reserved to Scottish operators. I think I am asking for very little in asking that only one Scottish representative should be on each of these two other Corporations.
Important statutory committees and other bodies constituted on a United Kingdom basis normally include a proportion of Scotsmen. It is indeed essential that they should do so because, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows,
1080
we have entirely different laws in a great many ways in Scotland. During the war, in the drawing up of legal documents for purchases or other affairs like that, it was often entirely forgotten in England that there were these different laws in Scotland and that things which seemed quite simple down here were difficult or impossible to arrange under the legal system up there. I can say from my own personal knowledge—I see a noble Lord over there is smiling—that when I was Regional Commissioner I frequently had to send down to London to say that a Defence Regulation was totally impracticable up in Scotland; it was against the laws of the land up there, and would have to be amended in its relation to Scotland.
There are other reasons why we should have representation. We, as your Lordships are in England, are very jealous of the amenities of our country. We want someone on the Corporations who can represent us and tell the Corporations whether a particular design or operation would be acceptable to us or not. Finally, we want to make quite sure that, whatever work is done on these aerodromes and buildings is done by Scottish workmen. We have more unemployment arising in Scotland than down here, and it is essential for us always to keep in mind that we must have a Scot on the Corporations to look after these unemployed people and to see that they get the work which is so necessary. I do not want it to be thought in the least that this is a defeatist question which I am asking. I still hope that we shall have a Scottish Corporation for Scotland, but I believe that until we have that, so long as the Government are wedded to this present policy, it is essential that we should be represented on these two Corporations.
3.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? I wish I could agree entirely with my noble friend's suggestion, but I cannot quite do so. I could, however, agree with him on one condition, and that is that Scotland is not renouncing her claim to control her own air services. I cannot say that I want very much to see Scotsmen sitting on Boards in London, when they might be running Scottish air services from Edinburgh. In every case except the air I want to see a United Kingdom. There is too much concentration in London and I should like to see some relief of the

1081
congestion which still hangs over the capital like a dead hand and which stifles enterprise and initiative. If we are not going to get what I hope we shall get, then I think the noble Earl's proposal is a good one, and if we have Scotsmen on the Boards they will certainly help to safeguard Scottish interests.
3.29 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I will, with the permission of your Lordships, answer this question. The composition of the Boards in question is under consideration and the noble Earl's suggestion will be brought to the notice of my noble friend the Minister of Civil Aviation on his return to this country. I am quite sure that the two noble Earls will not expect me to make any observations on the points they have raised this afternoon, but I will undertake to see they are brought to my noble friend the Minister's attention when he returns to this country. Perhaps the noble Earl will raise this matter again on a day following my noble friend's return.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I appreciate the difficulty that the noble Lord is in in answering for another department but, on the other hand, this is a disappointing answer. This matter was raised not only in my noble friend's question but in the debate at which the Minister was present. I understood the Minister then to say that he had had it under consideration to have a special regional board for Scotland. What I want to emphasize is that it is really very important to give Scotland proper representation. We are now going into an era in which there will be only these three companies. I am not going, on this occasion certainly, to argue the rightness or the wrongness of that, but I think everybody felt that whatever system was followed, Scotland should have a fair opportunity and should be satisfied that she was being properly served.
At this moment the airways which are running in Scotland are run—I think that I am right in saying this, my noble friend the Earl of Rosebery will correct me if I am wrong—by boards which are very largely Scottish boards. There are on on those boards, I understand, people who are skilled in traffic management, and who know what the needs of Scotland
1082
are. Those boards, I believe, are giving great satisfaction. If you are going to sweep all that away, then it is really essential that in this new sealed-pattern organization which the Government insist on setting up, they shall not only give Scotland good service—that is, that Whitehall shall serve Scotland adequately—but that Scotland shall be satisfied that her claims and needs are known and understood and will receive due attention.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in further reference to what the noble Lord on the Government Bench has said, surely it is rather extraordinary—if one interprets his remarks as I interpret them—that Scotland's share in these Boards is to be dependent on the whim of one Minister, the Minister of Civil Aviation, instead of being freely given—as is her right—by Cabinet decision.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount appreciates the difficulty in which I find myself. In the circumstances I really cannot promise your Lordships more than that I will bring to the notice of the Minister and of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, the observations which have been made in the course of this short discussion.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, the noble Lord who 'has replied for the Government has asked me to bring this question up again. I assure him that: I shall do so at the earliest possible moment, and shall then move for Papers. I would like to point out to, my noble friend the Earl of Glasgow, that I have particularly said that this question was raised without any prejudice to Scottish Companies. As for the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, saying that there are difficulties which make it impossible for him to tell us very much in replying, I can only say that his reply amounts to nothing at all. I have seldom been more dissatisfied with any reply to a question.

FARMERS AND FOOD SHORTAGE.
3.35 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARRhad given Notice that he would move to resolve, That this House warns His Majesty's Government that British agriculture can only make its maximum contribution towards relieving food shortage if the Government

1083
(a) enables it to plan ahead by taking farmers into their confidence in good time; (b) gives not only a strong lead but full support to the war agricultural executive committees; and (c) makes available labour and houses in rural areas. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think we shall all be agreed that it is not entirely inappropriate that within a week or two of discussing the general food position of this country, and, indeed, of the whole world, we should now have a debate on what contribution the agricultural farming community can make towards the solution of the food problem. We are told on all hands, by His Majesty's Government, by representatives of U.N.R.R.A., by those responsible for control on the Continent, by those responsible for India, that, in fact, at the present moment, misery and actual starvation face many millions of people throughout the world. Within a few weeks of being told to adjust itself to peace-time conditions, British agriculture has once again been recalled to arms. Long-term plans for building up our livestock population, even at the expense of tillage, have certainly had to be modified, if not actually laid aside, until happier days. The country has appealed to the farming community, that is to the farmer and to the farm worker, to help it in this moment of difficulty. Those who know the farmer and the farm worker, are quite sure what their reply will be. It will be to do their utmost.
The purpose of this Motion is to attempt to make it clear to His Majesty's Government what will be required of them if the good will and the efforts of the farmer and his workers are, in fact, to be really effective. If I seem to be a little critical of His Majesty's Government, I implore them not to think—not to attempt to deceive themselves into thinking—that I am being in the least bit partisan. The present Minister has done a great deal towards removing agriculture from the cockpit of Party politics, and it would be a very poor friend of the industry who said a single word that was likely to undo the work either of the Minister or of his predecessor in that direction. But mistakes, I think, have been made—terrible and tragic mistakes. They are tragic because the less food that is produced at this moment the greater the misery and the greater the toll of
1084
death; tragic because the missing of a sowing season even by a very few weeks means in agriculture a lowering of food production during the whole period of twelve months.
One acre of land produces, in this country, something like one ton of wheat. As I work it out—the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will probably be able to correct me if my figures are wrong—on a basis of 80 per cent. extraction that means something like half a pound of bread per head for 3,500 people. If we calculate what we have lost by the delay in telling the farmer what is wanted of him I think it would be reasonable to say, up to a minimum of 200,000 acres of wheat. Your Lordships will be able to see what a very large number of people have been deprived of a very large quantity of food. There is not the slightest point in exaggerating what one small and overcrowded country can do. We certainly cannot hope to feed a hungry world. But what we can hope to do, and what we can do, is to ensure that we, ourselves, make the minimum demand on the world's larder.
Thanks to the persistency of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, we have now got from His Majesty's Government the actual official figures of the increase of food production that took place during the war. Those figures, as I remember the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said, were 30 per cent calculated on pre-war monetary values, 120 per cent. in terms of shipping, and (the figure that affected us most in the war) 70 per cent. in terms of food values, that is, in terms of calories. This shows what we can do, given the right lead and given real support from the Minister of Agriculture and the Government. I speak as one who is quite convinced that we could do a great deal more. None of us can travel through the country by road or by rail and look around us and not see hundreds of thousands of acres of semi-productive grassland that could produce more.
Whether it is a matter of tillage—or of better grassland—or, if tillage, whether we should grow on it human or animal foodstuffs, is not really the question. The fact is that, one way or another, those acres could certainly grow a great deal more food. Bat there are certain conditions, and the first condition is this, that farmers do not have desperate last-minute appeals thrown at

1085
their heads but are enabled to lay their plans for years ahead. Whether it is arable farming or stock farming, you cannot farm from day to day. The second condition—this is a point I am not going to deal with in my speech, because other noble Lords who are going to speak can deal with it much better and I do not want to weary your Lordships with repetition—is that the Minister should give not only a strong lead, but strong support to his agents, the war agricultural executive committees, on whom he is calling for another very difficult task. That is all I am going to say on that most important point, for the reason that I have given. The third condition is that farmers should have adequate labour for tending their increased acreage of crops and their increased stock. I regret very much to say that, as far as I can see, the Government have failed on every one of those three counts.
The noble Earl will know I am sincere when I say that we appreciate very sincerely the agreed, all-Party, long term policy for establishing a stable and planned basis to our industry. But it is really not the least bit of good in these days talking of planning if you have neither the common sense nor the courage to look ahead of you and see the troubles that are coming. That is indeed a denial of all planning. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Food's speech the other day in another place, on the food situation. It is fair to say that every single word of the Government's defence was proof positive that in fact the Minister of Food was fully aware of the growing gravity of the situation last October. It is quite true to say that he received worse blows after that date—further disappointments. It is quite true to say that there was the bare possibility at that time of just squeaking through, if nothing else went wrong from then onwards.
But, my Lords, knowing the position, (and you will remember that in his defence he actually quoted the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs showing that in October the position was known), the Minister preferred to take a chance, instead of facing up to the situation and getting the country, and particularly the farmers, to face up to it. He took a chance where no man had a right: to take a chance. His duty is to safeguard the people's food, and on that no one, I repeat, has a right to take a
1086
chance. So far as it is possible to ascertain, he did not even tell the Minister of Agriculture of the growing 'seriousness of the position. If he did, then the Minister of Agriculture is equally to blame, because as late as the middle of January he stood by and allowed the Minister of Labour to announce to an anxious agricultural community—because we were all beginning to be aware of five position, even if the Minister of Agriculture was not—that they still intended to call up 8,000 skilled men. It was not until next month, when the Prime Minister came in and over-ruled both of them, that that call up was ultimately cancelled.
We have to look back for many a long year for a better sowing season than we have had this autumn and early winter; yet that was passed over and allowed to drift by until February, when the first official intimation we had was a bombshell thrown into the middle of all our carefully-laid cropping plans. I would ask your Lordships' House, and I would ask His Majesty's Government, this simple question: suppose we had fought the Battle of the Atlantic in that spirit, where would this country be to-day? I have said the farmers are going to do their best; of course they will. They did so during the war and they will do so again. But if the Minister really hopes for some increase from the appeal that he made in February, what does he imagine the result of that same appeal might have been if he had delivered it in October? How much more wheat would in fact have been sown in the soil of this country if he had given us adequate warning? We may get a certain increase of wheat now, but it is going to be at the expense of other crops. As the result of the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading earlier this afternoon we may get a few more acres ploughed up, but on the whole it will be a transfer from barley to wheat, and will mean little increase in food production. If we had had good warning we could have had a real addition to tillage which I am afraid we are not going to get now.
Nor is disturbance of the cropping plan the only matter to be considered. Why let us go on building up our population of pigs and chickens again, not only without a word of warning but with actual Government encouragement and assurance of rations? As late as December the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture were making

1087
optimistic speeches in that direction. That was cruel and unjust to the individual farmers, many of them small men who were at last encouraged to feel they could get going again. They had made their contracts with the hatcheries, they had laboured to put chicken houses into a state of repair and some of them had spent hundreds of pounds on re-equipment. It was not only cruel and unjust to those men but an unsound national food policy to encourage the rearing of stock in that way. The ex-Minister of Agriculture in another place said that this was the first time since the beginning of the war that the ration had been dishonoured. All through the "blitzing" of the harbours, the sinking of ships and the horrors and uncertainties of war, every coupon issued or promised was met and honoured.
I said at the beginning that I did not want to say anything of a partisan character, but is it unfair to comment on the fact that it has taken this Government, whose whole philosophy is based on the need for greater planning, seven months of peace-time in which to reverse six years' proud record of wartime planning? I repeat that it is no good talking of planning or delivering propaganda speeches on planning, today. It is just years out of date. Three or four years ago the whole agricultural community, through every representative body that exists in agriculture, had accepted once and for all the need for a planned agricultural industry. We do not need propaganda for planning; all we need is perfectly ordinary Ministerial competence and perfectly ordinary Ministerial co-ordination of their activities. I labour this point because it goes to the very roots of our whole future policy.
Many of us want to carry on in principle the planned policy we had during war-time. The whole root of the success of that policy was absolute confidence between the Minister and industry doubt if many people outside—I am not at all sure if the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, would not be horrified if he knew—realize what agricultural liaison officers were entitled to tell the war agricultural executive committees about our stock position and shipping losses. That information was the very basis of success, of what happened. That knowledge by
1088
people in the agricultural industries that they were never asked to do anything for which they did not know the reason, enabled us to make a success of the war-time policy. This whole policy for a planned industry, which the Minister has now laid before us and which we welcome, is at stake in this question of restoration of confidence. It would at least be some recognition that the Minister realizes what he has done in shaking confidence if he were prepared to grant a degree of ex-gratia compensation to farmers who have suffered loss from an expansion, with Government encouragement, of their pigs and poultry.
This point was brought up a second time in another place yesterday and the Minister of Agriculture there turned it down. He turned it down on the ground that the decision was forced on the Government by the world shortage of cereals and was not dictated by any change in Government policy. Really, a Minister cannot get away with that. No one suggests that it was a change of Government policy but what we state definitely is that it was on the basis of quite definite Government assurances, first given last summer and continued right up to last December, that men expended very large sums of money. If the Minister likes to make some exceptions with regard to larger men and to restrict compensation to the smaller men in the industry, those of us who farm on a large scale would be perfectly prepared to accept it. But a great many of the men who depend for their livelihood upon pigs and chickens in the agricultural industry are extremely small men with small capital. Really the issue at stake here—the shortage of food—is too great for any questions of false pride, and it is essential for the Minister not only to recognize what has happened but to say publicly that he recognizes what he has done. Increased production for the future can only be secured if he takes some such step as that to restore confidence.
Now I pass to the next condition with which I want to deal, the supply of labour. Where, at the present moment, is the supply of labour going to come from for increased production? No good farmer is going to sow more crops or breed more stock unless he is confident that they can be properly looked after. What is the position? We are promised more German prisoners. That is all to

1089
the good. On the whole they work quite well, but they turn up at a farm about 9 o'clock from their camp—an attempt has been made to make them arrive earlier—and they leave at four. How can you organize a farm on that basis? It is said that there is going to be a big drive for the Women's Land Army. That is to be welcomed and I hope the Minister will feel he can be assured of support from all classes of the agricultural community in that drive. But without going into details I think the Minister is going to have to think out some way of making the Women's Land Army a little bit more attractive to girls in peace-time. This is a point which is not only the responsibility of this Government but the Government before and I want to make that quite clear to the noble Earl opposite. The members of the Women's Land Army are still smarting under their treatment under the gratuity scheme. I think there are many other things to be given consideration. The question of coupons and clothing may not seem so important to the male mind as to the female mind. But let us face it. We are now dealing with the question of females, and it is just as well to try to take their individual feelings into account. I hope the noble Lord will give some undertaking that he will look into the question of coupons.
You cannot however plan permanently for an industry on the basis of temporary labour. Out of a complete labour force at the present moment of approximately 75,000 in total for England and Wales, 44,000 are land girls; 124,000 are prisoners, either Germans or Italians, and about 8,000 are conscientious objectors. That means that just under 25 per cent. or practically a quarter of our labour force is of a temporary character. In my own county the proportion of temporary labour is rather higher. It is nearer one in three than one in four, but the proportion no doubt varies with different counties. How can we plan our operations on that basis, having no assurance hitherto, so far as I know, that the Germans are going to stay after the next harvest?
If we turn to our permanent supplies of labour, up to the end of January—I have not seen a later figure; doubtless the noble Lord can improve on this—about 4,000 I think have come out of the Ser-
1090
vices under Class B. I understand we have lost something like 10,000 of the older men, who only hung on because of the war, and we are likely to lose more. Then I gather (perhaps the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong here) that after June—we must remember that demobilization is going on all the time—there will still be left in the Forces something like 45,000 farmers or farm workers. Those are the men that the industry needs. They are the men who know the job, who know every job on the farm. That sort of man, if you send him right to the other end of a farm, and give him a certain task to do, has got the wit and the knowledge of the industry to find himself another job if it starts to rain. That is something you can never do with an unskilled man. The return of those 45,000 men will not solve the problem, but until every single one of these men has been not only offered release but has been positively encouraged to leave the Armed Forces and to come back to the land, the Government really cannot possibly contend that they are taking the food situation seriously, even if the food situation was only half as grim as we are being told it is by Ministers at the present moment.
There is a further point on labour. The Government must face up to the wages issue. I do not want to raise what is a very difficult subject; at least, I do not want to raise it in its more difficult aspects. Thank heaven, discussions have been conducted in such a way between the Workers' Union and the National Farmers' Union that there has been no spirit of conflict between them. It has been a mutual facing of a problem. There is no solution to this question short of a national wages policy. The Lord President of the Council in another place turned this down the other day. Nobody wants to start a spiral, a vicious spiral I think we generally call it, but why must it always be agriculture that does the dirty work? Why let the wages in all other industries go up, and yet, when it comes to agriculture, say "No, we cannot start a spiral"? One reason—and I think it is the only - reason—is that it is regarded as a sacred right by every urban worker in this country that he should be paid more than the agricultural worker. I would very much like to impress this point on the noble

1091
Viscount, the Leader of the House, because I think it is a point he would appreciate, and it is a point that I would ask him particularly to impress upon his colleagues. If it were laid down as a cardinal principle of the Government's wages policy that the farm worker is a skilled labourer worthy of equal treatment with other skilled labour in the country, then half of this problem of agricultural wages and agricultural labour would be solved straight away. I am afraid the problem does not end there, because we are never going to get more labour unless we have more houses. Houses are the sole responsibility of the Government. The private landowner, like the private builder, has been told that his efforts are not wanted.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is not true; that is not a correct statement.
EARL DE LA WARR: Well, I will justify it. The Housing (Rural Workers) Act has been done away with, and the Minister of Health has not fulfilled his pledge to produce something better. The amount of the subsidy for new houses offered to the private landowner as compared with that offered to the council—and, after all, the council is going to charge a higher rent than the private owner—is laughable. I contend it is quite clear our efforts are not wanted. The responsibility for the provision of houses in the countryside henceforward does in fact rest with the Government. There is one point that is worth mentioning here. What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that the houses that are built in the country villages are in fact let to agricultural workers? My own personal experience is that they are generally let to everyone but the agricultural worker. It may be the postman, it may be the railway worker, or it may be someone who comes out from the nearby town. I would like to ask the noble Earl what steps he thinks the Government will be able to take to ensure that the agricultural workers do in fact have these cottages. I do want to make a very earnest appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, to ask their colleagues to reconsider their attitude towards this problem of housing. By all means limit the rent we are allowed
1092
to ask. Impose any conditions on us that you like, but do give to those of us who live in the country, who love the country, and who want to do something to serve the country people who live round us, an equal opportunity with the council to make our contribution to this problem. I make that very definite appeal to the noble Earl.
The problem of food production is never going to be solved in terms of a short-term policy. The world food shortage may be over in two or three years or in three or four years, but the dollar shortage is going to remain with us a very great deal longer than that. This makes the Minister's task considerably easier, because it means that all factors point in the same direction, both short-term factors and long-term factors. I appeal to the Minister to make up his mind, here and now, whatever the day-to-day reports that he may or may not receive from the Minister of Food. For a very long time forward it is going to be necessary for the agricultural industry to go "all out." I wonder if he does not think, in terms of the seriousness of the crisis, that he is "pulling his punches" a little in his speeches. Like many others in the agricultural industry, I have been deeply charmed and delighted with the Minister's speeches lately; they have been so friendly to the industry and so anxious to help. But do we not want just a little more sense of urgency and of real leadership from him during the crisis?
We have shown that we will take leadership during the war, and we are prepared to take it again if the situation is really put to us. I know that countrymen cannot be driven very easily, but we can be led. By all means let him drive his colleagues: let him drive the Minister of Labour to get us more workers; the Minister of Health to give us more houses; the President of the Board of Trade to allow the import of labour-saving machines, and the Minister of Food to keep him in touch with what is really happening and what is likely to be required of him. Then let him come to the agricultural community and tell us what he wants, in good time ahead before he wants it. Let him give us a feeling that, having given us a job to do, he is going to get us the tools and, if necessary; fight to get those tools from his colleagues. When he has done that, I can assure the noble Earl and, through the noble Earl,

1093
the Minister, that he can count on full support from the whole industry and a generous response to any appeal, however drastic, that he makes to us for further help for the country.
Moved to resolve, That this House warns His Majesty's Government that British agriculture can only make its maximum contribution towards relieving food shortage if the Government:

(a) enables it to plan ahead by taking farmers into their confidence in good time;

(b) gives not only a strong lead but full support to the war agricultural executive committees; and

(c) makes available labour and houses in rural areas.—(Earl De La Warr.)

4.14 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, this debate is both timely and appropriate, and the House, will, I feel sure, be indebted to the noble Earl for raising this important subject at this time. I feel bound to say that there is nothing in his Resolution with which I could very greatly disagree or that is inconsistent with the policy that is being pursued by His Majesty's Government. In the course of his remarks, he quoted figures giving the yield of wheat per acre—five quarters to the acre. It is no fault of the present Administration that the price of wheat was so low, even last year, as to encourage farmers to grow barley instead of wheat. You must take that into account, and admit that so far as planning out is conic.erne:1, the late Government, which has some support in this House and had very important members in it, was responsible for the policy.
EARL DE LA WARR: Support on both sides of the House.
LORD QUIBELL: That has been responsible for the disastrous condition in which agriculture finds itself to-day. Let us look at the matter. The noble Earl's own case is, and I agree with him, that you should plan ahead. Six months after the late Government went out of office, the complaint is that there has been no planning ahead, because if wheat was to be sown it should have been sown last October. Where was the vision of the previous Government? Had they any? So far as the previous Government are concerned, it was responsible for a lack of proper, balanced agricultural economy.
1094
I put myself in the position of a farmer. One can easily criticize the farmer, but personally I rather like him. He is a realist. Put yourself in the position of a farmer. He can grow six, seven or eight quarters of barley per acre—six or seven quarters at the very least. At £5 per quarter that amounts to £30 per acre for barley. If he grows wheat he will get £3 a quarter, which is £5 per acre. On which crop do you think he is going to concentrate? Which crop do you think he has concentrated on planting for next year? I could give you the instance of a big farmer in my area. I have been to see him within the last few weeks, so that I could be prepared, because I expected this matter to be raised, sooner or later, from one side or the other of this House. He has planted 300 acres; of barley instead of 300 acres of wheat, and the barley is already in. If there is not an improvement in the weather very soon, it will be altogether too late to plant wheat. Spring wheat has got to be in during the next fortnight or three weeks: otherwise it will be too late. I say, so far as the noble Earl's complaint is concerned, it ought to have been made against the late Government. They did not plan ahead; otherwise we would have had wheat planted, to the reaping of which we could look forward.
Labour is also an important factor, as he said. I do not think you can do without it, although a lot of people would like to. You cannot get away from the necessity of labour in agriculture. I remember that some years ago, when unemployment was very bad, the Society of Friends bought tools and seeds and presented them to men who were willing to take over the very bad patches of land in their area—derelict land which was growing thistles, docks, twitch and every kind of rubbish. One fellow in Westhoughton, set about this task on land where nothing but thistles would grow before. With the tools bought by the Society of Friends and with his own hard labour, he produced a fine crop on his allotment. They talked about it in Westhoughton, where the pit was closed down. Finally the vicar walked town to look at the allotment. He had heard men talking about the peas, potatoes and greens which had been grown on it. The vicar was amazed at what he saw had been produced from this little piece of land,

1095
and to the man with his coat off, working hard and sweating with his toil, he said: "What wonders the Lord can perform!" The man who had performed the hard task of cultivating the land said: "You ought to have seen what it was like when he farmed it himself." I think that emphasizes the need of having a man on the land and the necessity for hard work. We shall never get away from that so far as agriculture is concerned.
I should like also to draw attention to several other aspects which I think ought to be considered immediately. I recently visited a very big farmer friend of mine. I was most anxious to know what corn was standing in his stack—you may call them "ricks," but we call them stacks in Lincolnshire—because when I was going round the previous week I had seen some of the 1944 harvest still in his corn stacks; it was there on his farm. When I said to him, "So far as this new appeal is concerned, if it had come earlier we might have got a lot more corn in land which has gone to barley and other crops," he said "Yes." I said, "I have noticed there are a large number of stacks about and I have been wondering what is the reason why the harvest has not been threshed. I have tried to put myself in a farmer's place and I have said to myself 'I am bound to market my potatoes; they have got to go because they are perishable. My sugar beet has got to go in the season; my carrots must go. I shall feed my fat stock in the yard and eat some of my seeds. When that is done I shall put a roof on the wheat'"—you know what I mean by that. "'That will then be taken care of and if there are no vermin it will stand for a long time, but if I thresh it, having had a very bad basic year, all I shall do is to take it out of the corn stack and hand it to the Revenue.'" He replied, "You have put your finger on it." He then told me the amount he had had to pay in what he called E.P.T. He is keeping his grain; it is there to be looked at. That is not a rare case. I venture to say that if a census were taken of the amount of corn that is in stacks in this country the results would be surprising.
We know, through the county committees, how many acres of wheat are sown in any year but we do not know how much is threshed and delivered. No
1096
member of the Ministry knows that. I can tell you from my own observations that a great deal of it is in stacks, and if somebody spends a week-end with me I will take him to have a look at it, with the permission of those who have it, because there is nothing to stop them keeping it. The farmer has no need to worry about it. Why should he? He concentrates his men on cleaning and preparing his land for next year's harvest. Contrary to what the noble Lord has said, at Christmas time they were burning twitch when I was on a farm, and it has never been in a condition like that within the memory of the man who is on it, and he was born on it. He has never been so far forward with his work as he is at the present time. As far as E.P.T. is concerned, however much one may regret it, it is a fact that it does encourage farmers, instead of threshing wheat, to leave it where it is. There is a roof on it and nothing can happen to it; it is better than sending it to the mill. That is not a result of any policy pursued by the present Government, but nevertheless is a fact. This Government has inherited this slackness; it has not just been created.
If a farmer is asked "How many potatoes have you got? "he will say" I have got 120 tons" or "I have got 150 tons." Who is to say what there is or what there is not? In many cases there are far more potatoes than are disclosed in any return made to the authorities. I saw the representative of a very big area and he told me "If we get 120 tons, we pay them with two cheques; we pay for a hundred tons with an open cheque and the other one is 'pay cash to the bearer.'" He said "There is perhaps 150 tons, but they keep twenty or thirty tons to see themselves out of a difficulty, and if they want to sell them to somebody who has no potatoes they can get some oats in return." There is no method whatever of assessing the amount of food of one kind or another on the farms of this country.
In the House of Commons I have always urged the necessity for a balanced agricultural economy. I am not blaming the farmer for growing barley because it is more profitable to him than wheat. It seems to me very natural that the farmer should grow the crop which is going to bring him the best results, but I blame the Ministry for not finding this

1097
out. I am convinced in my own mind that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, was right when he said in a speech in this House the other week that there were no figures which could be produced by any department which could be said to be sufficiently fundamental on which to build a case as to what the food supplies were in this or any other country. I look at it in my own peculiar way. When the war started this old country, faced with difficulties greater than those facing any other country which took part in this war, set about intensifying its agriculture and increasing the production of food, and succeeded in doing so. What did they do in Germany? They did precisely the same thing. What was done in Poland? The Nazis compelled the inhabitants to grow food for their armies, and they did the same thing in France. As they marched into Russia they reaped what the Russians had sown and when the Russians pushed them back they reaped what the Germans had sown. Where has all this food gone which was grown in those countries?
I am convinced in my own mind that in the scores of thousands of little farms and homesteads in Europe you will find repeated what I have said is happening in this country, but to a greater extent than in this country. America and the Argentine were remote from the areas of the war. Where has it all gone? After five years of war, with all its difficulties of transporting food from one country to another, we are suddenly faced with what is called a food crisis. I was fortified in that belief by meeting a boy who had been in Germany. He came home to my farm the other week and I interviewed him. He says that he has never been so well fed in his life before. He was not in Berlin, but in some other part of Germany. And his case is not a rare one by any means. Many other cases could be quoted. Indeed, we have seen that so far as other countries are concerned—America and Canada, for instance—the populations are doing very well for food. I have here a copy of a report from a Special Correspondent who has recently been into the Russian zone of occupation in Germany. It was published only last Sunday. I hope that I am in order in quoting this. The correspondent writes:
"In the last few months, among other food production, Saxony has exported 1,000
1098
tons of wheat, and rye to other Russian occupied provinces—"
They could not do it if it was not there. I think it is to be found in other places besides Saxony. The report goes on—
"and 1,070 tons of meat to Berlin and the Province of Brandenburg. In addition, 500 horses have been sent to Brandenburg, and 500 goats to Pomerania."
I think that we should do well not to take too much notice of all the tales that are circulated by different countries about the shortage of food. We have always been at the feeding end of the cow instead of at the milking end. That is what I would call a cow-partnership and not a co-partnership. We have had the feeding end to look after, and they have cut the cow in two. I would not mind if they had cut it lengthways, but I do object to their cutting it crossways. I protest: against that.
In a later part of the report which I have just quoted, the correspondent goes on to talk about the general prosperity in Germany. He tells how the people feed well, and how their diet generally is better than ours here. Indeed, from what he says, their standard of feeding is infinitely superior to that in this country at the present time. In my view—and I say this in support of Lord Cherwell—we should take steps first of all to see what we have in this country. Then we should say, as a certain gentleman once did when talking to the French about their ability to pay: "Turn your pockets out." I should also like to see an approach made to Russia—who must have tremendous resources of food—and other countries. The call for help should be made to those countries as well as to this country. If, as we are told, people are starving, then those nations too should be asked to make sacrifices. We should all make sacrifices in equal proportion in order to feed the starving people.
I am getting on in years, but so fat as my recollection goes, it has always been the case that whenever there has been a shortage of food in one part of the world, there has been a surplus in another.
"Nature, God, provides for all
And 'tis man that says man nay."
I feel that, in the present circumstances, this Government and the Ministers concerned are receiving some criticism that they do not deserve. If there is any

1099
criticism at all to be delivered, it is with regard to what has been left behind for this Government to attend to. There would have been nothing wrong if the former Government had continued to plan ahead as they did in the past, and had encouraged or demanded the sowing of wheat in even greater quantities than before. It is my firm belief that it is possible to increase enormously the potential yield of our next harvest if we only set about our task in earnest, if we realize that our duty in these difficult times is not to try to score off each other in a political sense, but to harness ourselves to the great task of winning security from starvation, of overcoming the shortage of food which faces our people, and of trying to bring to an end long-term rationing. We do not want rationing to continue longer by a day than is necessary.
I would like to make this comment concerning what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has said. He stated in the early part of his speech that he was not going to be partisan, but I am afraid that he could not have made the speech which he did make unless he had been partisan. I am not blaming him; in fact, I may say that I liked little bits of his speech. But he was sufficiently partisan for me to understand that he was attributing some blame for this food shortage to an insufficient number of acres being sown with wheat, and he laid that blame at the door of the present Government. My point is that if there is going to be a shortage of yield in this next harvest by reason of reduction in the number of acres sown, that will be due to lack of foresight on the part of the Government which was formerly in power.
EARL DE LA WARR: Would the noble Lord kindly tell us what Government was in power in October? I understood that the General Election took place round about July, but I may be wrong.
LORD QUIBELL: Not much planning could be done between July and October. It was of long-term planning, planning ahead, that I was talking. The point which the noble Earl sought to make, concerning lack of foresight, should really have been applied to that Government which he and I at the time both supported. So far as the present Govern-
1100
ment are concerned, I believe that the Minister of Food has rightly said that he is doing all he can to meet the situation. I would, however, urge the Government to try to use the war agricultural executive committees and other organizations to the utmost. I would also suggest that an endeavour should be made to get a correct census of the food available if only for the information of the Department concerned. Let us all pull our weight and make equal sacrifices. And in saying that I ask that every effort should be made to get others to make sacrifices equal to those which we in this country are asked to make.
4.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Eard, Lord De la Warr, has certainly done a great service in raising this matter, and the manner of his doing so is equally to be commended. There is only one small reservation in regard to his speech which I should like to make. Otherwise I am in complete agreement with it, as I think will be the case with most of your Lordships. But before coming directly to the noble Earl's speech, let me deal very briefly, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Quibell. I must confess that I found his speech to be in some parts contradictory. On the one hand he was at great, if somewhat laboured, pains to prove that the lack of foresight shown by the Government in the late autumn was due to the Government which had become defunct a good many months before. That is an analogy which I was quite unable to follow. Far be it from me always to throw bouquets rather than brickbats, but the late Coalition Government at any rate was a Coalition Government, and the Party to which the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, belongs, must share responsibility for its errors as well as for its good deeds.
So far as I could make out, Lord Quibell seemed to me to be in some doubt as to whether the shortage which his own leader claimed to exist, and which, I think it is generally recognized does exist, on the Continent of Europe, was really there, and he drew a picture which I believe to be reasonably accurate on the state of Germany. But, frankly, I think it is not so much the plight of the population of the German aggressor with which we are concerned as that of the victims of the German aggression. While no one would wish children anywhere, even German

1101
children, to go short of food, surely it is our duty to consider the children of the occupied countries first before we show an undue sympathy for those who precipitated the recent catastrophe. There was one other point in the noble Lord's speech that I was unable to follow. If I heard him aright, the noble Lord suggested that farmers were endeavouring to escape Excess Profits Tax by refraining from threshing the stacks. That would not do them any good, because the profit on a farm, as I know from my own experience, is calculated not on the cash balance alone but also includes the question of the increase of the valuation at the end of one year over the beginning of that financial year. Therefore, I am afraid that those would-he cunning farmers will find they gain nothing in the long run.
To come more directly to the Resolution of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I do agree that it is absolutely essential that whatever Government are in office should, as far as is humanly possible, take the agricultural community into their confidence. The fact that this present Government adopted the name of Micawber, and at the same time stuck its head into the sand, was a tragedy of the first water, because it meant that a considerable area which could well have been sown with wheat in the autumn was not so sown, and that in an autumn which was noticeable for the mildness of its temperature and weather conditions generally. We hope that in the future this will not occur, and that the Government will take both the farming community and the Opposition into their confidence. In this matter there should be no Party feeling whatsoever. Matters of this sort are far too serious and far too weighty to admit of any petty sniping or attempts to gain ground.
The one point on which I have a slight hesitation is paragraph (b) in the terms of the noble Earl's Resolution, in which he asks not only for a strong lead but for full support to be given to the war agricultural executive committees. While I am in agreement with that, I - would venture to suggest one addition; that is, that certain of these committees should be brought to realize that the purpose of a committee is to get things done with as little friction as possible. The committee of which I am a member is, I think, no
1102
more unpopular than any committee can hope to be, because it has always taken as its view-point that the Object of a committee is to help the farmer and to encourage him rather than to bully him. It also believes that agricultural land should be farmed by the farmer and not by the war agricultural executive committee. The result is that only in very few cases have we ever taken over agricultural land and worked it ourselves, and when we have done so we have always taken the very first opportunity to hand it over either to its former cultivator or to some new person. I am afraid that is not the case everywhere, and I do think that while it is felt that support should be given to these committees, it should also be made plain to them that their real function is to encourage the farmer and to deal with him by persuasion, rather than by using driving and dragooning methods, which should only be as a very last resort.
The main comment I want to make this afternoon is upon paragraph (c), dealing with the question of labour and houses in rural areas. I want particularly to-allude to one point which I do not think has yet cropped up in the course of the debate; that is the question of the employment of juvenile labour in the harvest. In various parts of the country certain self-styled educationists have waxed positively hysterical upon the evils of child labour. One would imagine that children were being sent to work in the salt-mines under the knout from the many exaggerations that have been openly expressed. Various education committees, certainly in Scotland and, I think, elsewhere, have tried to make it clear that if it is left to them there will be no child labour available for the harvest this year. If that is to be accepted, it is going to be a disaster. The noble Earl has given us a very good picture of the labour strength in England and Wales which mutatis mutandis can be applied to Scotland also. If we are going to have a crop as good as we can expect, and if we are going to have the mixed weather which so often exists at harvest time, the services of children will be needed, and if those services are not afforded much valuable foodstuffs will be lost to the nation and to Europe. I hope that, while I am in agreement that children should be properly paid and work in excellent conditions, His

1103
Majesty's Government will make it clear that they are not against the employment of children, particularly during the potato harvest.
Lastly, there is the question of housing. I do hope that the present distinctly discouraging attitude of the present Government towards improvement or the rebuilding of rural houses by their owners will be modified. Like many of your Lordships and other landowners, I was modernizing houses at the very beginning of the war and would have got them all finished had it not been for the war. Are those of us who are doing that work not going to get the labour and materials to make those houses into proper and satisfactory dwelling places? If not, many of us will go to the building black market, because we do consider it absolutely essential that the agricultural labourer and farm worker should have as good housing conditions as his fellow worker in the city. Up to date the conditions cannot be considered to be in any way satisfactory and we must have, I think, an assurance from the Government that they are going to do all in their power to increase the number of houses available for rural workers. It will also be remembered that the very heavy arable programme of cropping which exists at the present time means that there are not enough houses for the workers, even if the workers are available, because for a great many years past the mixed farming programme has been more or less stabilized. You had therefore a more or less fixed number of workers and usually an adequate number of houses for them, although in all too many cases those houses were not modernized. To-day, not only are many of those houses needing modernization, but their numbers are often entirely inadequate for the labour force which is required in many districts.
Although not so important, I would ask the Government also to do what they can to release materials and labour for the erection of implement sheds, particularly in the more exposed portions of the country, because farming methods have changed very much in the last generation, and farmers now require several times the number of implements they needed only twenty or thirty years ago. Fortunately, farmers are beginning to realize it is not
1104
really very good economy to leave their binder in the corner of the stackyard or to leave their potato-lifter in the corner of the field from the end of one harvest until the beginning of the next harvest. They do realize that these implements ought to be under cover. No farms, unless they have been modernized fairly recently, have anything like adequate accommodation for these implements, many of which are, of course, delicate and complicated, requiring overhead and, in many cases, side shelter. If, therefore, we are not going to have a deterioration of implements, and a loss to the country in general, it will be necessary for implement sheds to be provided. I hope that the Government will do all within their power to see that labour and materials are released for this purpose.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONGhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the grave shortage of food now existing in the country, they will cause all agricultural lands owned, or under requisition, by the three Services and not at present used for Service purposes, to be again put under cultivation. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise at this particular moment in the debate with your Lordships' permission and for the convenience of the House, to ask His Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name. I am indeed deeply grateful to the noble Earl for having given me this opportunity to raise this point with His Majesty's Government at this particular moment. I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not but within a very few days of having put my question down, certain authorities under the War Department began to get very busy in my neighbourhood—I am talking, of course, of Salisbury Plain—and they proceeded to go round to the farmers and ask them at this eleventh hour if they would make their land arable again. For three reasons, many of these farmers have found it impossible to acquiesce. Firstly, they have only been granted a two-year tenancy under this great War Department and in this vast area over which the War Department hold sway. Secondly, many of them have not got the necessary capital at this moment to get the ground cleaned and put down to arable and thirdly, when they have sown this land the clause in their agreement holds good that the

1105
troops can go right through it whenever they wish. It appears to me somewhat farcical at the eleventh hour to ask farmers to take on such a job.
One farmer, who rented under the War Department a 1,200 acre farm up to 1943, when the army of occupation in that area was still manœuvring and the guns were still firing, produced no less than sixty-one and a half tons of prime meat in a year as well as corn, wheat, barley and so on. He has taken on two hundred acres on the fringe of this area because he is prepared to take a chance and he has got the tackle to do so. But is he allowed to put his men back into the cottages he owns in that area? No, his workmen have to live out and only officials of the War Department are allowed to live in his cottages. It is very difficult to think that this is a sane policy or that you are going to get the best out of the farmers who are the tenants of the War Department in this area.
In 1940 we knew we might have an invasion at any moment and in consequence the whole of this country was mapped out. Prisoner-of-war cages were made. It may seem very strange, but now, nearly nine months since the war has finished, one of the largest prisoner-of-war cages erected in 1940 is still in the middle of this area. It is within 300 yards of a main road where no possible manœuvring of any kind can take place. Anyone can see it as he drives along the main Salisbury to Devizes road. Do His Majesty's Government really mean business? One is really beginning to doubt from their own example whether they do. We shall be told, no doubt, that a committee has been set up and that they are very carefully investigating whether this or that land shall be continued under the War Department but that no decision has been arrived at yet. No doubt I shall be told that I have not given the noble Lord notice, but quite frankly I did not think it was necessary. I raised this matter with the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for War last August and last September and I have had a letter from the Minister of Agriculture to say that it is receiving his urgent attention. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, I do not quarrel with Governments, but I have not heard anything at all and the Government have been in office since last July.
I wish to place before His Majesty's Government three points. Firstly, if land
1106
is to be offered to these farmers again and they are asked to put it down to arable, the minimum tenancy should be five years and not two years. Secondly, once this ground has been ploughed up and put back to arable for corn, wheat or barley, the troops should be forbidden to traverse it. I think those are two suggestions which His Majesty's Government might very well accede to and grant. Lastly, in these vast areas of Salisbury Plain—I live there, so I know what is going on—there are hundreds of acres now, alas, under Government control, growing nothing but dandelions and thistles. They could easily be turned over to the farmers and could be producing food by next year. So long as the present policy of His Majesty's Government exist;—especially that of the War Department—I feel with regret that these hundreds of acres will continue to grow dandelions and thistles.
I turn from that matter to the question of the aerodrome, built it is true at a moment of great urgency, in the finest part of our county. For security purposes it is known as the Keevil aerodrome but: it is actually in the parish of Steeple Ashton. There is a 1,700 yards runway there and there is a Spitfire factory still turning out Spitfires. They are assembled there and sent out a few at a time. Most of this aerodrome is under water throughout the winter and yet: we are told by the authorities that this is going to be a permanent aerodrome. We cannot have: any premanent barracks there for ten years. The aerodrome is costing the country, a fortune because of the wet ground where it is placed. I submit here again that His Majesty's Government could well return this land to the tenants and allow them to grow food for this country for the next two or three years rather than lot it go on as an aerodrome. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to put forward these facts. We feel very strongly that we are being frustrated and that the example sot by His Majesty's Government is not a good one. If your Lordships will come down there you will see that it is not a good one. I trust that what is now a land of dandelions and thistles will be turned back to a land flowing with milk and honey.
4.59 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, I have no

1107
technical qualifications for taking part in a debate on this vitally important question of agriculture. Indeed, I have less than no qualifications, because in my own experience of farming on a small scale, I have consistently made a loss year by year. I think it is convenient, perhaps, that I should answer at this moment the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, whose question appeared on the Paper as a separate question independently of the Motion made by the noble Earl opposite. I must confess quite frankly that, couched as the question was in general terms, I have directed my mind to replying in general terms. I was not aware, although I make no complaint of course, that the noble Viscount was likely to raise specific questions. Before I come to the general reply, perhaps I might say this, that I have myself devoted some attention to the use of land for agricultural purposes, and I think it may be the result of some suggestions I have made that inquiries have recently been made of farmers, particularly round the perimeter of training areas, as to whether agricultural pursuits could be carried on without interference with the particular purpose for which the land was acquired. I am not familiar with the point as to the two or five years' tenancy, although I appreciate it, and I can certainly, I feel, give to the noble Viscount an assurance that where there are growing crops of wheat or barley, which I think he mentioned, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure they are not wantonly trespassed upon by the troops.
May I come to the more general reply which I would give to the noble Viscount? I wish him to understand that the urgent need for the maximum cultivation of land is fully real Ad by the various Service Departments, and that all possible steps are taken to ensure that the land owned or controlled by them is made available for agricultural purposes whenever and wherever Service requirements make that practicable. As he has asked a question with regard to the three Services, let me take the Army first. The bulk of the land held or used by the Army is required for military training, and for this purpose it is held under Defence Regulation No. 52, which only confers rights over the land when it is not necessary to displace the farmers or the other occupants. Indeed, the major part of such land, if
1108
it is suitable for agricultural purposes, is being farmed in the normal way, without interference by the War Office in the training that is being carried out under its direction. But there are extensive areas of land either owned or controlled by the War Department—I think I identify one of those areas which the noble Viscount had in mind—or held on requisition under Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 51, which confers different and more extensive rights than those conferred by Regulation 52, to which I referred previously. Now, land which is owned by the War Department, whenever the use to which it is put by the War Department makes it possible, is as a matter of routine let to agricultural tenants or to grazing licensees, and in addition, there is the Army agricultural scheme, which does useful work. I do not wish to exaggerate —
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I ask the noble Lord what is the length of the period for which they are let?
LORD NATHAN: I mentioned just now I had not been informed of that precise question and that I was not familiar with it. I am unable to say whether it is two or five years, which I think was the period.
VISCOUNT LONG: I said two years.
LORD NATHAN: The noble Viscount, Lord Long, suggested it was two years, and asked that it might be turned into five. I said I would look into that matter.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Does the noble Lord realize that a two-year tenancy makes it impossible for people suddenly to go on growing wheat in the middle of March?
LORD NATHAN: I made it quite clear that I appreciate the point, although, not having been forewarned that that particular point would be put to me, as to the length of the tenancy, I am not in a position to make a specific reply at this moment to the noble Earl. So much for that. I was speaking of the Army agricultural scheme, and saying that it does useful work, which I do not wish to exaggerate. It does useful work within camp areas, and in places where cultivation by civilians would not be practicable. Then there is the land requisitioned under Regulation 51, which gives full rights of possession. That is released to the owner

1109
as quickly as possible after it ceases to be required for Army purposes. Large areas have already been released, and release is constantly proceeding.
The future requirements of the Army are at the moment being reviewed in detail at the War Office, and I hope that as a result, more land will be released. But the temporary retention of considerable areas of land is unavoidable, even after they have been declared as surplus to military requirements. In some cases the land must be held pending the clearance of unexploded missiles—a long and difficult task, for which only a limited amount of skilled labour is available. I think noble Lords would be astonished if they knew not only of the labour involved and the difficulty involved in the clearance of unexploded missiles, but also of the very large area to which this difficulty applies. It is not felt that it would be wise or proper finally to release areas although they are no longer used for War Office purposes, for training purposes, unless and until they can be handed over in what might be called a tolerably safe condition.
That is in itself a delaying factor which it is right should be mentioned and taken into account. That land must remain out of cultivation until it can be made safe. I am sure there can be no question on the part of noble Lords as to that. Other areas are necessarily held pending the disposal of War Department assets. In all types of cases, however, it is the policy of the War Office to facilitate the re-use of all available and suitable land either by arrangement with adjoining owners or farmers or though the Army agricultural scheme. In cases where large areas of requisitioned land have been very bady damaged, and the owners are unable to take the land back in its present state, local war agricultural executive committees are invited to assist in bringing it back into condition.
VISCOUNT LONG: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Do I understand by that statement that what are now prisoner-of-war cages will be handed back to the tenants so that they can be put under cultivation?
LORD NATHAN: In so far as the prisoner-of-war cages are no longer used, and that is doubtless of fairly general application, they will be handed back provided they are not required for any
1110
other purpose for which they had been requisitioned, or rather, that the area upon which they stand is not required for any other War Office purposes. I turn from the War Office to the Air Ministry, who are similarly taking all possible steps to release land for cultivation. They have worked out a comprehensive and detailed plan designed to make available this year the maximum amount of suitable land at airfields compatible with Service use. Airfields which are no longer in use, and which are known to be outside peacetime requirements, are handed over for unrestricted agricultural use. Where an airfield is scheduled for further flying use, though not so used at present, the cultivation of limited areas is allowed subject to precautions regarding drainage. The cultivation of areas outside perimeter tracks where the safety of flying would not be affected has always been arranged and continues. Land requisitioned by the Air Ministry for bombing ranges can seldom be put under cultivation because of the danger from unexploded missiles. As in the case of the Army, which I mentioned before, grazing is normally arranged when the more harmless ranges are temporarily out of use. Surplus land at wireless stations is also let wherever possible.
So far as the Admiralty is concerned, it has been throughout the war and still is the policy to devote all suitable land under Admiralty occupation to food production to the greatest possible extent consistent with the Service use for which the land is held. In some cases arrangements have been made in consultation with the local war agricultural executive committees for local farmers to graze land in Admiralty occupation, and in other cases land has been cultivated on an allotment basis by Service personnel. In furtherance of this policy, and in view of the present food situation, the Admiralty, in agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, are placing considerable areas of land within the enclosures of Royal Naval Air Stations at the disposal of the war agricultural executive committees for cultivation, where this can be done without serious interference with the safe use of landing grounds. Requisitioned land is being released so that it can revert to agricultural use immediately it is no longer required by the Admiralty. The noble

1111
Viscount asked me questions as to the three Services, and as to the three Services I have answered.
5.11 p.m.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, I am somewhat at a loss to know quite where to get back to the agricultural debate and to the Motion moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I have listened in the last quarter of an hour to discussions about prisoners' cages, unexploded missiles and I do not know what, and I honestly felt that I was a churchwarden (which I am) in my church, reading the Lesson, or something of that kind, on Sunday. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that he is not the only farmer who makes a loss; so perhaps he may take some comfort from that. But may I get back to the noble Earl's request that we should seriously get down to the question and consider whether we could not plan ahead a little more in our agricultural industry?
It does seem to me rather incongruous that, in a world where everyone is being controlled by planners and where life is now apparently to be planned from the cradle to the grave, agriculture should be the one industry where every farmer's plans, however sensible and well thought out, are always the ones to be completely frustrated. It is just a platitude for me to say that a farmer has to plan his cropping rotation, the layout of his farm, and so on, some years ahead, and he cannot alter his plans because of miscalculations in a Government Department, or because politicians have changed their mind. I do want noble Lords on the opposite side to realize that there is nothing so exasperating as this "blow hot, blow cold" policy, an "enduring policy" one month, and a panic policy the next. It is no good. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has tried to show you it is no good. Moreover, it is no use saying it is this Government's fault, or that Government's fault, or the previous Government's fault. It is no good sending out an S.O.S., as one was sent out at the end of last November for autumn sowing and another in the middle of February for spring sowing, when, in my particular country, we have six inches to two feet of know on the ground.
1112
I want to emphasize the tragic loss there has been to the small man owing to the exhortations and the contradictions about pigs and poultry. They are the very farmers who have received the hardest blows in these last years, and they are small men. I know many of them. On the exhortations of whatever Government it was—and I do not care a hang which one it was—they got their hatcheries back, they built up their flocks and I do not know what they did not do. The small dairyman was told he should keep every single heifer calf, and now he is told that the livestock resurrection or reconstruction, or whatever it is called, has got to be put back for goodness knows how many years. I believe your Lordships discussed allowing the female sex into this House yesterday. Do, please realize that the agricultural industry is not one which can change as quickly as ladies' fashions. Careful thought and timing are required.
May I just emphasize, if it wants emphasizing, though surely everybody knows it, that Government timing—whichever Government, again, I do not mind in the least—is always too late. May I take an example of Government timing that is too late? I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Southwood, is responsible for the paper I hold in my hand. It does not seem to me very good timing for this periodical to come out on February 9, just about the day when they were talking about cuts in rations, with a big picture of the Minister of Food and the words: "Sir Ben Smith Plans 1946 Menu" on the outside. In the middle of the periodical you find there is what is obviously an inspired article—an interview—which is published on February 9:
"Guardian of Britain's food, Sir Ben Smith, the Minister of Food, looks forward to improving and varying our diet this year."
That does not seem to me very good timing, and it is about the same sort of timing as we get in requests to plough up our land. Of course it may be sheer publicity: possibly the figure of the Minister of Food may be good publicity for a cut in rations!
It is to the last two points in the noble Earl's Resolution, however, that I wish specially to direct your Lordship's attention. I may say some quite critical things, because I am unfortunately one of those people who have had experience. Therefore I want to say that there is no personal

1113
reflection on the Minister of Agriculture at all. I am sure he is utterly sincere in his desire to put agriculture on a proper and lasting basis. I want also to make perfectly clear that neither do I wish in any way to minimize the efforts of the officials of his Ministry, because I have never received anything but complete courtesy, help and encouragement from them throughout the whole of the last six and a half years. But I do want to show this House and perhaps tell the Minister of Agriculture that their efforts and his efforts seem to be thoroughly frustrated by political panaceas and by other Government Departments.
If your Lordships will bear with me for a little while I will try and give you some definite examples, which create the feeling that, whatever the food crisis, agriculture is not considered a priority and is still the Cinderella of Government Departments. On Saturday, June 8, I believe there is to be a victory march. God knows, it seems to be a pyrrhic victory! I believe there is to be a Victory march. In his announcement of the proceedings on that day the Prime Minister, in another place, enumerated all those who were to take part, from Allied troops to N.A.A.F.I., the N.F.S., the Red Cross, and I do not know whom else. There was not one mention of agriculture, and, as usual, the women's service that I consider anyhow has done the finest job of all the women's services—the Women's Land Army—was completely ignored. Now they may be used to that sort of treatment, but it does not help the recruiting campaign for the Women's Land Army that has just started. I wonder if 'those of your Lordships who have not served on war agricultural executive committees have any idea of the scope and size of their operations.
I want now to give you some examples of the difficulties we are up against. To carry out our task we have to have workshops to repair and service vast quantities of machinery. It does not quite give confidence that agriculture has priority when the President of the Board of Trade orders you out of a workshop where threshing machines are being overhauled, binders are being repaired and tractors are being serviced, because he wants it to export screws, or something else to another part of the world. We had to look elsewhere and
1114
we eventually found a place which the N.F.S. wished to vacate, and so we went in. We had to find it in another town, but the N.F.S. were perfectly prepared to relinquish it. We went in there and we had not been there a week before the Ministry of Health said it was a building site, the whole thing had to be pulled down and we should get out at once. We refused. What happened next? The Rural District Council was ordered to billet people in the bunks behind the workshops where we hoped to house our mechanics, so that we should have to move out in any event. We appealed to the Office of Works. There was another place which we could get for £600 a year, but the Office of Works refused to requisition it for £600 a year. They said the rent was too much and they would not do it because we went into the other place before they had requisitioned it. They would not do anything at all for us until they got orders from the Ministry of Agriculture. Do not blame farmers if corn is not reaped and threshed; inquire of the four or five Departments who have been frustrating whilst that corn rotted.
I want to give you another instance. I have been searching for about two years to find war agricultural executive committee offices. The only really suitable place was occupied by a very small section of the Army, so we have had to go into nine different places, with a motor to take the papers from department to department. Now the Ministry of Health say that the Town Council is turning us out of those places so that they may billet people in them, and the Town Council has passed a resolution, and sent it to the Ministry of Health, stating that huts are good enough for the staff of war agricultural executive committees. Yes, anything is good enough for those who produce the food! I am sorry if I am wearying your Lordships, but it is time this sort of thing came out.
Another difficulty with which we have to contend is that of transport and tyres for the lorries. I wonder how many tyres of the size we want are lying rotting in Army dumps at this particular moment? I know of a case where thirty per cent. of the lorries are off the road owing to the shortage of tyres of the size 34 by 7 as used on five-ton lorries. One firm of tyre distributors has seventy-six outstanding orders for them, and another one has had

1115
500 demands for them. I am not worried about that, but what is happening is that it is holding up the delivery of fertilizers and other essentials for agriculture, because the small sized tyres now being issued burst when the lorry is loaded to capacity. Therefore there is not an agricultural lorry running in those districts with more than two-thirds of its possible load. If food production is so vitally important, is it not possible for agriculture to have priority over the Service scrap heaps?
I want to ask the Government one more question; what are they going to do about the reorganization of war agricultural executive committees? I warn them that unless they carry through that reorganization soon, the war agricultural executive committees will lose all the best men from their staffs. The staffs are only on a temporary basis, they have no security whatever, they do not know what their future is going to be, and in consequence all the good men are getting much better jobs at much higher salaries. Exactly the same applies to the National Advisory Service. I stress the importance of a decision, and a generous one, because I can visualize that the whole of the organization which has been carefully built up over the last six and a half years may simply disintegrate and collapse if we do not do something about it.
Now I want to come to the last part of the noble Earl's Motion, labour and housing. I wonder very much whether even the House of Lords realizes how serious the agricultural position is. Looking at the empty Benches around me I wonder whether they really do care whether agriculture survives or not. Do your Lordships realize how serious this labour and housing question is? I know of three counties in which I checked up, and in which I corroborate the figures given by the noble Earl. In these three counties at this moment for every three and a half British workers on the land there is one German or Italian prisoner. May I remind your Lordships that in that three and a half there are conscientious objectors and members of the Women's Land Army—although I would not couple the two together if I could help it? We have lost about 1,500 of our Women's Land Army girls, the very
1116
best of them, and the "conchies" are, to say the least of it, not quite Too per cent. skilled agricultural craftsmen. We must have an answer in the counties. What is to happen when the prisoners go away? How long are we going to have them? We must have answers to those questions. In my county we cannot even man the threshing machines without them now.
May I show you another side of the picture, a financial one? In my county alone we are sending out bills to farmers for payment for gang labour, machinery hire, contract work, etc., to the tune of £ 20,000 a week. That is in one county; that is how the work is being done. What will be the position when the prisoners leave and when there are no contract gangs for us to send out to farmers and to bill them for? May I make a still further plea for the release, not only of agricultural workers in the Forces but also of young farmers who want to start on their own and who, in many cases, were not in possession of their farms at the beginning of the war or when they were called up? Some of them were just going to agricultural courses and things of that kind. I appeal for them to be released at once. Everyone has to make a start at some time, and we do want to build up a younger generation in this great industry of ours. I hope the Government will do that, because there are many farmers' sons in that category.
I should like also to say a word about the agricultural training scheme. Candidates are not coming forward quite as fast as we should like. We find there is a great deal of ignorance about this scheme and that labour exchanges and welfare officers are not properly posted in the details and in the intricacies of its working. The men who do come before us for interview are those who have fought their way through obstacles and discouragement because they are absolutely determined to go on the land. I would warn you that the pamphlet "Farm Workers and Farming" is now a damning document. I know that it was issued, and quite rightly issued, because of the wish to stop the tragedies of ignorance which occurred after the 1914–18 war, but I warn the Minister now that that document is having a seriously deterrent effect on the people who want to come forward. It frightens would-be applicants. I have

1117
had welfare officers say to me that they could not possibly advise men to take up the profession of the land after they had read that document. I ask that more enlightenment and encouragement should be given in respect of this scheme.
I must say one more thing about housing, which is perhaps the most serious feature of all. My Lords, do believe me when I say that wages are not the crux of this matter. Good men who earn them are getting good wages, but no one is getting any houses. The Ministry asked us to get out a census of what our requirements were in the various counties for agricultural workers' houses. We based our census on the increased tillage area, and we halved it because we realized that certainly not more than half of that increased tillage area would be kept in production or in cultivation after the war. On the basis of only three houses to 100 acres, on half the tillage acreage—and not counting in our fruit and hops and goodness knows what else, which need twice the Labour that the ordinary open arable needs—I want 3,000 agricultural cottages in my county now.
That is a very serious situation. We may be worse off than in other counties. But we did have a war on down our way, and there happen to be some 100,000 agricultural buildings, including cottages, that were damaged. So the position there may be worse than elsewhere, but that is the situation. Now I want to make what is, perhaps, a disclosure. I hope that the Minister will not think that I am betraying him as his agent. The Minister told us to—this was the word he used—"intimidate" the rural district council into building agricultural cottages. I did not go back and intimidate. I went back and asked them what their troubles were. If your Lordships will bear with me, I will just read to you the answer that I got from the rural district councils as to the processes they have to go through before they can get one house.
May we start with the matter of the "Selection of the site?" The answer states under this head: (a) Normally in conjunction with Parish Council. Site or sites suggested then referred to (b) the Surveyor who makes preliminary survey as to suitability and then (c) refers to housing committee for decision. The housing committee having decided on a site it is, after preparation of site plans
1118
by the surveyor (d) referred to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning who consult (e) the Ministry of War Transport and (f) the Ministry of Agriculture and (g) the Ministry of Health Regional Office. If no objections are raised by the Ministries (d), (e), (f) and (g) the site is (h) approved. Do your Lordships want the rest of it? I can go on for another page and a half. Every single detailed stage has to go through some five controls and four Ministries and goodness knows what else before you ever see a sign of a house. Are all these hamstringing restrictions really necessary?
And now I hope that for the first time in this speech I am going to be rather partisan. I desire to warn the Government. There is an impression gaining ground that the Minister of Health is putting Party politics before house building. He has said that only one in four houses will be built by private enterprise. I know private individuals who, even at sacrifice to themselves, are prepared to build to-morrow as hard as they can go, if given the chance. But they are not allowed to do so. And is not the real issue this: that when someone builds a house and owns a house, he has a stake in the country, and he perhaps, ceases to be a Socialist? So that, even at the cost of no houses, no one must own a house. He must be a tenant of some council, and then he will have less chance of deserting the Socialist faith. That is the feeling that is gaining ground, and it is believed that it is a definite thought-out policy. If it is, then we can whistle for agricultural houses. I only hope to Heaven that it is not.
In conclusion, there is one further remark which I am very sorry to have to make. I notice that in another place, in answer to a question from a Member as to whether the Minister would restore the wheat deficiency payments as an incentive to grow spring wheat, the Minister answered: "Farmers ought to do it out of loyalty." I am sorry that he made that remark. I know the loyalty of the farmers. They have supported my Committee and every other Committee that I know of, where they have been run properly, for six and a half years. In spite of order and counter-order, they have always responded when asked, but there is a great deal of difference between asking and ordering. Well, they are, perhaps,

1119
legitimately wondering now whether miners are getting coal out of loyalty, or whether dockers refuse to unload food ships out of loyalty.
Farmers do not strike, you know, though apparently it is now going to be encouraged and made perfectly legal to hold a pistol to the nation's head. I ask the Government to stop these exhortations to people to come to the rescue in the nation's need, for these exhortations are nearly always made when it is almost impossible for us to comply with them. But the farmers always have done, and always will do—even at sacrifice to themselves—their best to respond to the country's call. But I do beg—and I hope that the noble Earl, who is going to reply, will not think that I am being vindictive or too critical—that they should be given confidence. Do not let them be frustrated and harried by other Departments. Let them be paid fair prices for what they produce. Give them the tools, give them the houses, give them the men, and they will not let the nation suffer.
5.36 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I feel somewhat diffident in addressing your Lordships' House after the splendid and stirring speech which we have just listened to, but I desire to say a word about the war agricultural executive committees. Those of your Lordships who have served for six or more years on war agricultural executive committees will know one thing, and that is that the members of those committees are getting tired. And they have reason to be so, for although I have heard very considerable criticism as to the quality of their work, I have heard very little criticism concerning the quantity of it. There is no disputing the great amount of work that they have done. But they are at the present moment in a state of some doubt. They know that, as at present constituted, they are about to be abolished, but they do not know when. The general impression would seem to be that the abolition will come about between August and October. Each committee knows that it is to be replaced by a body which is to consist of two farmers, two landowners, two agricultural workers, and an undefined and indeterminate body of nominated members with presumably some qualifications. That is going to be a pretty radical change, because whereas
1120
a war agricultural executive committee has had on the average 75 to 80 per cent. farmers running it, it may well be that in the future there will be less than 20 per cent. As I say, this is a radical change. We have come to the stage now when it is desired to breathe new life again into the moribund bones of these present war agricultural executive committees. I agree that there is only one way to do it, and that is for the Government to take them into their confidence, to tell them what they want, and also why.
Next we come to the district committees, and here the position is even more obscure, because, remarkable though it may seem, in none of the Minister's speeches nor in any of the numerous memoranda that have gone around have I seen any single mention of district committees. Yet I think those who work on war agricultural executive committees will confirm me when I. say this, that the spadework has been done by the district committees; it was the district committees, not the war agricultural executive committees, who made the farm surveys, who have graded every farm, who have been responsible for every cultivation order, who have supervised the farms, bringing many of them up from C to A grade, and who finally have been the originators even of the dispossession orders and have borne the brunt of the unpopularity—though I quite agree there was plenty left to go round to the war agricultural executive committees.
Who are these district committees? They are three or four thousand of the best farmers in England, and they have worked. My own district committee during the years 1940 to 1942, I reckon, did on the average fifteen hours a week on this work alone, and they also had a full time job to do. In addition to that, they were nearly all of them Special Constables, members of the Home Guard, or Air Raid Wardens. I venture to think those men have served their country well, and I would suggest that we should be told what is going to happen to them. Are they going to be abolished? Are they going to be permitted to resign? Are they going to be reorganized? Or are they, in accordance with the precedent set by the late Minister with regard to the land fertility committee, just to be allowed to fade quietly away? I think they deserve an answer, because

1121
they do not know; most of them think they are going out this autumn.
What about the farmer? I suggest to your Lordships that at the present moment the farmer is flummoxed. In the late autumn, but after the harvests in Canada and U.S.A. were got in, he was informed that there was any amount of wheat in the country; the acreage subsidy had been cut in half; the orders for growing wheat were being discontinued; there was even talk of rationing, if you please, the wheat acreage! The time of the hoe, the pig and the hen was coming. And, as you have heard, many a small man invested his savings to make a start in this direction. Further than that, eminent authors emerged from their lairs and in a most attractive way told us that mixed fanning was muddled thinking. The cow and the cabbage were the things we had got to keep an eye on, not the corn. A few months passed, five or possibly six, and then the bomb fell, and the farmer was told, to his amazement, that there was a grim shortage of all grain, and that starvation stared us in the face; and, further than that, remarkable as it was, that that grim shortage was going on for two or possibly even three years. My Lords, I would ask: how can these things be?
This country has been an importer of food, I would not say "from time immemorial," but for many years—otherwise she would have starved. That, I more than presume, those responsible in this country for studying the growth of the wheat harvests of the world from the time of sowing to the time of harvest—I do not know how often they get reports, but I always imagine they are probably fortnightly or even weekly—would know. We hear of droughts and things of that sort. But a drought is not a thing which happens in a night. It is a thing that goes on and on. I tell your Lordships this, that of all the grain crops wheat is the one that stands drought the best. Many a good crop of wheat has been grown on four inches of rain. Is it surprising that the farmer is saying to himself (and I hope the noble Earl will answer this): How is it that, when one harvest fails, that accounts for two or three years of scarcity? "Surely one harvest cannot amount to more than one year. Anyway, it is puzzling to the farmer, I can assure the noble Earl of that. The farmer is
1122
saying to himself "I believe the Ministry is now being just as pessimistic as it was too optimistic in the autumn."
Just one word about the farm worker and what he is saying now. I think he is really talking mainly about wages at the present moment. He looks upon this wage question as an elusive prize which always escapes him, the prize being a comparative reward for his skill and energy in accordance with that which other workers receive. It always eludes him, for this reason, that, the moment he catches up all the other industries, they attempt at once to put their wages on a higher level. And, mark you, very often there are grounds for saying, "You would not have us paid like an agricultural worker!" It is amazing. The question of wages to the farmer, on the other hand, stands like the sword of Damocles above his head. It may be different in some parts of the country, but in my part of the country farming is by no means an Eldorado. There are many farmers in the same position as Lord Nathan confessed himself to be in at the present time; they are only just on the right side, and many of them are on the wrong side.
It seems to me that there are two lines which the Government can lake. They might say (and this is what I wish they would say), "The farm worker is the man we regard as having the first priority in the profits of the industry. This is what he ought to have; this is a wage suitable for his skill and his work. That is the first charge, and we will see that the prices allow him to get it." On the other hand, they might say, "This is the most that the country can afford for its food," and allow the present or some better machinery to see that he gets as much as reasonably possible out of it. But they do not do either at the present moment, and the uncertainty is having a very disastrous effect. I am encouraged by seeing a question asked but not answered in the other House, to put it here. One of the things that most affects the farm worker is the fact that he pays Income Tax on his overtime. Although, of course, that is reasonable enough, he dislikes it above all things, and he even sometimes goes to the extent of not doing overtime at his own farm but doing overtime at a neighbour's farm, because he finds that more profitable. I suppose that it is not possible that the farm

1123
worker who works overtime should get some revision of Income Tax, but if it was possible not only should we get a lot more overtime from him but the farmer would have a lot less overtime in doing his accounts. So there seem to be two advantages there.
I should like to stress the question of the German prisoners. I hope we may be relieved of some uncertainty as to when they are going. Some say it is after the 1946 harvest and some after the 1947 harvest, but no one knows. In some ways I shall not be sorry, although at the present moment we could not possibly get on without them. I do not like the system which is growing every day of a farmer keeping a minimum number of men and sending out for a gang to do his work. I was brought up on the understanding that a farmer kept a full staff. During harvests and at other times they worked full time and overtime and during the slacker periods they did such work as cleaning out hedges and ditches and so on. What is happening now is that these drainage operations are not being done in many parts of the county and if we are not careful in a year or two we shall find the drainage position in just as bad a position.
With regard to cottages, I hope the Government will bear this in mind. When these cottages are built—and I hope that our views are pessimistic and that they will come quicker than we think—I trust that they will be occupied by farm-workers. We have had county council houses built before for farm-workers. I have been to see them after three or four years and the number of farm-workers in them was very few. If a cottage is built for a farm-worker it is to that extent a tied cottage, and I may say that I attended a meeting addressed by the Minister of Health the other day when he made a statement that he would not insult an honest workman by asking him to go and built a tied cottage. That does not lead me to the belief that those cottages ostensibly built for farm-workers will be "tied" in the sense that they will be really reserved for farm-workers. At any rate it is not very encouraging.
We listened not so very long ago to the noble Viscount who leads the House telling us the Government's long-term policy and we welcomed it not only for the way he introduced it, but also for
1124
the fact that it was in accordance with the proposals of practically every reputable body which had been put forward before. That is the picture and I think the time has come to make it a little bit more definite and by seeing what can be done practically to make that picture a living work. If I may say so without offence, His Majesty's Government are remarkably good at demolition. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House will deny that. Their efficiency, their speed, their earnestness and their temerity in pulling down the ancient system under which we have lived for so long is simply marvellous. Of course, the system has many faults. I quite agree, but after all it was the envy and admiration of Europe for many years. But although demolition is fun—I should have enjoyed it myself enormously—building is really a higher job and I hope the Government will turn some of their attention, more of their attention, to the restoration rather than the demolition of things and that they will do it particularly with regard to agriculture.
It is only the producers who can restore prosperity to this country, as the Prime Minister so rightly said, and especially the producers of primary products who are really the only producers of wealth. One of the things which frightens me to-day more than anything else is this. I have every respect and admiration for the Civil Service. They are a fine body of men, probably the best in the world. They can help the producers and when they can they enjoy it. Sometimes they hinder the producers and it seems to me that sometimes then they also enjoy it. But whether they are good or bad, everyone of them has got to be fed, clothed and paid for by the men who produce and when I hear, as was stated in another place, that one man in every four is in some form or another in the Civil Service and when I see every day that their numbers are being swollen and that their emoluments are going up, I am terrified as to how the ever-dwindling body of producers is going to support these men. I have spoken too long, but I would just add this. I would ask the Government to go to the industry, all sections of it, and tell them what they want and may I stress this?—tell them why they want it. I am quite sure that if they do that the industry will not fail them. It has not failed them yet.
5.58 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I ask the noble Lord his authority for the figure of one man in every four being in the Civil Service?
LORD CRANWORTH: It was stated in another place during last week. The Civil Service includes all the public services. I have also seen the statement in print, besides seeing it in Hansard.
LORD PAKENHAM: I venture to offer the opinion that it is a long way off the mark if it refers only to Government service.
LORD CRANWORTH: No, to every-one.
5.59 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, as usual in agricultural debates we have had speeches from noble Lords familiar with East Anglia and south-eastern counties. Coming from Wales, I should like to say something on behalf of western farmers who are, of course, in a very different position. I personally think that the Government's chief fault in this sudden change of policy instituted by their review of the cereal position should have been, and could have been, foreseen. I remember before I left South Africa, where I was High Commissioner, seeing the report of their expert committee under the permanent head of their Agricultural Departments and of their scientists who told South Africans more than two years ago that never again would South Africa be in a position to export either maize or wheat but would become an increasing importer of both those cereals. I see in the Government's recent White Paper giving the speeches of Sir Ben Smith and the Minister of Agriculture the other day, a brief statistical summary at the beginning. The first thing that came to my eye was the fact that not recently, but before last harvest in the Argentine, the area that had been sown under wheat was down by 50 per cent. Surely that is an indication that something is likely to happen. What is the position to-day? The position to-day is that although we have a wheat famine at this moment, what we do not realize nearly sufficiently is that the mere existence of these cereal famines is intensifying the meat famine already upon us, which is going to get worse and worse.
1126
Let us always remember that in this country it is only a certain area, which is usually described as south-east of a line drawn from Whitby to Weymouth, that is really the wheat-growing land, that has the requisite geological formation, the high rate of sunshine, and the more porous soil—because wheat is a deep-rooted plant—and the lower rainfall. We in the west, and particularly in Wales, have tried to grow wheat during the war. We have been made to do it. We have been getting £4 an acre for doing it, a fantastic subsidy on top of a high price for wheat. True, we produced a sample of millable wheat. I never succeeded. I admit my farm was nearly 700 feet above sea-level in a very high rainfall area. It is silly to expect us in Wales to produce much wheat, but we can and always have produced oats magnificently, as they have in Scotland. Let us go on doing that.
And there is this sudden drive and talk in all the papers by the Government for more wheat. It is quite futile if you want results, particularly results this year. I happened before the war to be Chairman of the Wheat Commission under the Wheat Production Act, and I think it is often forgotten how much was done as a result of that Wheat Production Act passed many years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, comes from Lincolnshire. His county has pride of place in achievement as a result of that Wheat Production Act, as I well knew when I was Chairman. What were the conditions in 1939? You will remember that under that Act there was a levy on all imported wheat and flour, and that went into a fund to guarantee a minimum of 45s. a quarter for English-grown wheat, and 45s. a quarter was certainly when I was Chairman anything from 12s. 6d. to 15s. above the price of imported wheat, a very substantial subsidy. But if there were enormous subsidies paid during the war to get wheat grown, look at the position just before the outbreak of war. The area of Lincolnshire, the top county, under wheat was 237,000 acres, very nearly a quarter of a million acres. Adjoining Norfolk had 120,000 acres, and in our west country Devon, the largest of the west country counties, 214,000 acres. Yet in the whole of Wales and Monmouthshire there were only 12,000 acres under wheat. Even in 1944, with the drive of the

1127
Ministry and the war agricultural executive committees compelling people in Wales and Monmouthshire to grow wheat, and the £4 subsidy and the high price that was being obtained, the wise Welshman still put over four times as big an area under oats—which he got a harvest from—as he did under wheat.
Every Minister of Agriculture, in planning agriculture, whether short-term or long-term, ought to have three maps in front of him on his desk. The first would be a geological map. As you go from Dover to Holyhead, only 280 miles, you cross over the outcrops of every known geological formation known to geologists from the most recent, at Dover, to the pre-Cambrian at Holyhead. We are a unique country geologically. The pampas of the Argentine, the steppes of Russia, the prairies of Canada, are utterly different. We have no large areas of uniform soil, great, long, narrow strips going northeast and south-west. The next map would be a rainfall map. Within ten miles of my home up the hill at Harlech, the mean annual average rainfall is exactly 100 inches a year. In the Isle of Thanet, where they grow the best malt barley, except for one patch in the East Riding of Yorkshire, the mean annual rainfall is twelve inches a year. That is quite enough for the barley, provided it has got plenty of chalk underneath to get its roots into. Everybody knows that the annual sunshine hours in London are exactly double the mean annual sunshine hours in Manchester. We are a very remarkable island. We are a most diversified island in soil and climate, for a small area; consequently our agriculture must always be diversified. That is why it is vital we must not have farming from Whitehall. That is why our policy should be a free policy, and not a policy of one crop and one particular form of culture.
If you are going to continue in peacetime, as I hope you are going to continue, those war agriculture executive committees, admirable bodies as they are, do give them plenty of power to decide what suits their area and what does not. Do not always be issuing instructions from Whitehall. Leave it to them and their expert officers to decide what should be done on what land, on what farms, and what not, to get the maximum production.
1128
The next point I want to make is this. It is vital to us in Wales, where we are predominantly milk producers, beef producers or sheep producers, to know where we stand with regard to feeding, not merely for next winter, but for some years ahead. We read in the papers and it has been announced on the wireless that there has been an unprecedently good ground nut crop this season in British and French West Africa. Are we going to get any ground nut cake, or are we not? Or has it all got to go to Central Europe? As we cannot expect to get any maize or any wheat, or any feeding barley imported, what are we going to get, if anything? Is there any hope of any linseed cake, or of any cotton-seed cake? That can be ascertained statistically now, and should be ascertained statistically now from the data which the Minister's advisers and his technical departments could put before him at any time he asks them. It is vital that we should know. I am not talking of the poor pig and poultry keepers who have been led up the garden path; but the Minister has announced he wants production for market.
Nobody is more keen than I have been—and am—on being as independent as possible of all cereals, and, above all, of all imports. In between the two wars the farmers of this country got all too dependent on imported feeding stuffs, and the people who made money out of British agriculture—the only people who did—were the corn merchants, the commission agents for those corn merchants, the millers and the importers. Unilevers made more out of the British farmers than they ever did out of the British housewife with Pears' Soap. Can it be done? I know that in the west country a great deal more can be done and should be done to enable cattle farmers to be independent of imported feeding stuffs or cereal food, except a very little just to sweeten the bin at the milking time. But it does mean certain things. In the first place it means devoting a considerable proportion of arable land on every farm to the production of really high-quality silage. Last year I had three concrete towers made for making silage in three different ways for feeding my animals in the winter. Between the autumn sown silage crop, harvested at the end of May or before the hay harvest, and properly made, as against the aftermath silage and the scrapings that are put into silos, there is a world of difference in food values.

1129
What our farmers have got to realize, particularly our dairy farmers, is that they have to make silage. In fact, they have to conduct their dairy farms ever increasingly as arable farms. The contrast between arable farming and stock farming is rapidly disappearing, because the best stock farming postulates the continuous run of the plough over the whole area of the farm. The days of permanent pasture and permanent meadow are over, scientifically and economically. You can produce so much more and maintain so many more animals in this other way.
The problem is how to keep your dairy animals, beef animals and young stock, out on your pastures—I hope improved pastures as a result of reseeding—from the 1st of April to the 1st of December. In our high mountains and western country we have to keep them inside in the winter. If you let them out in the day time they will not get much, and will do more harm than good. If you are going to get winter milk, which the country wants, you have to feed them. You have to grow more kale, more man-golds, above all silage crops, and better hay, if you are to get anything from them. It can be done, but it means really getting a silage drive on. It is no use unless the farmer is definitely told that he has to get early silage; that he has to make it properly; that he has to buy a cutter and blower, so that the crop is pushed green into the cutter and blower and chopped up fine, when it can be treaded down at once. You then get a protein food out of vetch and bean silage which is absolutely second to none. Far more farmers ought to do it.
When I heard the announcement from Sir Ben Smith on the wireless of the food crash, I immediately got in touch with the firm from whom I bought my last concrete silo, with a view to ordering another. What was the answer? It was: "We have ceased manufacturing owing to the fact that there is no longer any demand". Quite frankly, these wire silos are better than nothing, but the amount of wastage in them is terrible. I have tried them. Now as to our kales. Last year I could not get any seed of rape kale, which follows on marrow-stemmed kale and is a magnificent food for dairy cows. After that one had to get thousand-headed kale. Not nearly enough seeds of the later kales are being produced. If we were to tell the farmers
1130
that they have to be more self supporting in winter for the feeding of their animals, believe we could and should succeed in doing it.
I wish to say another word about grassland farming before I conclude. I am connected with Aberystwyth and the University of Wales, and they have blazed the trail. Of course their researches suit our conditions; they may be quite value less for the other two countries. Certainly under our climatic and soil conditions—the early geological forms—reseeding with Aberystwyth pedigree grasses and clovers raises the carrying power of our land at least three-fold, if not four-fold. That is undoubted. I do not suppose those grasses would do so in the eastern counties or the midlands. The case is parallel with that of yeoman wheat, which was bred in Cambridge for East Anglian conditions. In our wheat areas in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire the one thing that is necessary is more store cattle. You cannot keep the lighter soils of the cereal areas of this country going from year to year unless you have plenty of dung, and, quite frankly, there is all the difference in the world between cow dung and bullock dung, as any farmer knows. It is vital to have the stores, and the stores are not being produced. They used to be produced in great quantities—the Welsh Black Runts, the Herefords and the Shorthorns in the west country. They went to Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire and the eastern counties for the winter feeding, and above all to provide manure.
Is it not a striking fact that the only two counties in England where there is now a lower total cattle population of all types and ages than there was at the beginning of the war—there is a great increase in the dairy herds everywhere—are Leicestershire and Northamptonshire? If you study the figures you will find there has been an enormous increase of dairy cattle and a steady decline of beef cattle everywhere. There are only three counties in Great Britain where that is not true—Aberdeenshire, Angus and Perthshire. Why? Because the Scottish farmers of those three counties are quite frankly still the best farmers in the whole of Great Britain, and I say that although I am not a Scotsman myself. They know their lands and they know that without

1131
these cattle their lands will not produce good crops. They are proud of their Black Angus and their famous 'beef Shorthorns. That is vital; we have got to get it going. I come from Wales. You will not get more coal from the Welsh miner until you give him back his beef.
Whether the industry is nationalized or not, whether there is a miners' charter or higher wages, unless you give him the old Hereford beef that he used to have, you will not get more coal. What is the use of an egg sandwich to a man who has got to go down a shaft, walk two and a half miles to the coal-face and stay at that coal-face hacking coal for six hours? He cannot do that on a dried egg sandwich. It is the same with all heavy workers. I was Regional Commissioner for Yorkshire for the first few months of the war and I remember the noble Lord, Lord Woolton's admirable choice of his food team in Yorkshire. We did not tell the public, but it was arranged from the start that the men in the heavy forges of Sheffield would get all the best beef that came to market. All the prime beef went to them, and they were not very particular about strict rationing, and quite rightly. If you are working in front of a furnace for long hours on gigantic steel armour plates you want some beef. In the same way, you will never solve the coal problem until you get more meat.
As I see it, the herds of Europe are devastated by war. I have not been able to get the exact figures of the cattle population of the Argentine, but I am told it is down by 6,000,000 head compared to what it was on the outbreak of war. I know the South African cattle population is down, and I know the Australian drought cost them 30,000,000 head of sheep in one year and a very large number of cattle. I know that except for the exceptional breeders of high-grade cattle, practically every bull-calf born in this country is slaughtered when it is a few days old. What hope have we of maintaining the fertility of our soil or of getting a more generous meat diet for the heavy workers of this country?
As to the tied cottage, I say quite frankly that unless a Welsh shepherd lives near his flock on the mountains in lambing-time he is of no use as a shepherd, If he has got to be sent down to
1132
the village miles below his flock, because it is near the parish church, the parish pump and the parish "pub" and because it is the only fit place for him to live, then we can say good-bye to the sheep industry in the highlands of Wales. The same applies to cowmen. By all means let those employed by the East Anglian arable farmers live in the beautiful villages which existed from the Middle Ages in Lincolnshire and Norfolk, but we in Wales are scattered; in our valleys and in our hills there are very few villages. A cowman's house must be close to his cows, because sometimes cows calve in the night. I know that is all wrong, and I wonder why this Government does not issue an order that all cows are to calve between 10 a.m. and before the beginning of overtime in the afternoon! However, the cows will not do it. But if a cowman is quartered in a Rural District Council house three miles away, of what use is he as a cowman?
The hold-up in the building of houses is fantastic. Last summer I got through the plans, under the old Act, of two new agricultural labourers' cottages, fantastically expensive, with bathrooms, water lavatories and all the latest gadgets. The plans have gone through the Ministry of Health, the local authority, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Works. The site is ready and waiting but there are no drainpipes, bricks are diverted to Liverpool, slates—we have masses of slates in north Wales—cannot be released without a permit from the Ministry of Supply. We are told to apply to Birmingham to the Ministry of Health, and to apply somewhere else to some other Ministry for the release of gutters. We are beaten by bureaucracy. It is not the Minister, it is not Whitehall; it is this huge horde of offices, typewriters and telephones in every town in England.
They all have to intercommunicate—five, six or seven Government Departments—to get materials. I have got the bricklayers, I have got the site, but I do not believe those two cottages will ever be built. This bureaucratic hold-up of all materials and everything to do with building is a tragedy. Wales is ringing with the fact that one of our Welsh members, now the Minister of Health, has, since he has been in office, completed one house in the Principality!
6.27 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate on an extremely important subject. I would particularly like to welcome the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Cranworth, as being constructive and helpful in every way. All the points mentioned in them, even if I cannot answer them fully now, will certainly be considered by my right honourable friend the Minister. I should like also to say how much I agree personally with the remarks on silage which have been made, and I hope we will be able to do more about it and also about providing materials for the purpose.
To return to the actual Motion before us, I was rather disappointed in one particular. The Motion moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is a Motion which, as far as I can see, can be completely accepted by His Majesty's Government, but I cannot say that we can accept all the speeches made on it. This is a subject which my right honourable friend the Minister, the other Parliamentary Secretary and myself, have always tried to keep out of Party politics because we genuinely feel that agriculture is a national interest and must be so dealt with. I am sorry that a certain amount of Party politics and partisan spirit has been introduced into this debate both by the mover of the Motion and by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. I should like to say that I think the first part of Lord Cornwallis's speech was excellent and constructive —
LORD CORNWALLIS: The other part touched you on the raw.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I certainly take exception to one particular remark. The noble Lord suggested that the reason why we are giving priority to houses by local authorities is in order to obtain recruits for the Socialist Party. I think that is introducing a partizan spirit into this subject.
LORD CORNWALLIS: I said I hoped it was not true but that was the feeling which was becoming generally accepted.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, and I am glad to take this opportunity
1134
emphatically to contradict that. To return to the actual Motion, I feel the noble Earl who moved it is in agreement with us on the first two points (a) and (b). Certainly my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is, as the noble Earl must know, in constant touch with the National Farmers' Union and generally with farmers throughout the country. The policy announced in November is one entirely directed towards bringing guaranteed prices, stability and security to the agricultural industry. That obviously cannot be brought about without taking the farming community, and farmers as such, completely into our confidence as regards plans and policy.
That is the subject of the first part of the noble Earl's Resolution, and we agree with it. With regard to the second part of the Resolution in which the noble Earl refers to the need for a strong lead and full support being given to the war agricultural executive committees, I should like to tell the noble Earl that last year my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, called a conference of all chairmen of these committees in order to discuss all relevant matters, and so that he might tell them his future plans and his future policy concerning agriculture and the industry generally.
In addition to calling this conference, the Minister also sent personal letters to the chairmen of these committees on all important points and subjects which came up, and upon which he wished to have their opinion, or to convey to them some information. There is, I think, in fact, no divergence of opinion between the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government on this question of supporting the committees, for we are so satisfied with their functioning in the war—and I must say here that in my opinion without the work of the committees it would have been quite impossible to have carried through our agricultural policy during the war—that the Government intend to put them on a permanent basis. At this moment discussions are going on with the various parties concerned to see how this can best be carried out. Here I should like to say a word about the district committees to which Lord Cranworth has referred. His Majesty's Government do appreciate their work tremendously. In fact, it has been the whole crux of the Government's plans to use these committees in future just as much as in the past. We hope that

1135
they will be strengthened and encouraged in every way, and that they will form an important part of the general set - up which we mean to bring into being.
Next, a word about the liaison officers. The Minister is able to keep in regular contact with the farming community through the extremely efficient work of these officers. I think that the noble Earl himself was a liaison officer during the war, and he probably knows better than I do how effective a means those officers provided of keeping communications between the Ministry and the committees and the general farming community. I think the noble Earl will be glad to know that the liaison - officer system has been expanded considerably, and that even more emphasis will be laid upon it in the future. Already these liaison officers have contributed much to the smooth working of the Department; and in the carrying out of our general policy and plans the liaison officers have given most able help throughout the country.
Having dealt with the first two heads of the noble Earl's Resolution, upon which there seems to be almost complete agreement, I come to the third part, which is perhaps the most important part, as it deals with labour and housing. These are, of course, fundamental problems that are facing the Government at this moment. Labour is, indeed, one of our greatest difficulties. We have heard a lot of criticism this afternoon about the labour situation, and we have heard some rather ominous forecasts. Questions have been asked also as to what is going to happen in the future; but I do not remember—and I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been made in the course of the debate—any constructive suggestions as to how labour is going to be produced out of the air, so to speak, for this country. But I would like to take this opportunity of stating the actual position with regard to labour, and what the Government is doing and trying to do. First, to deal with our own labour in the Forces. I am glad to say that we hope that releases under Class A should bring over half the number of former agricultural workers out of the Services, certainly by the end of April.
EARL DE LA WARR: Is that the figure of 45,000? There are, I understand, 90,000 altogether. Do you mean
1136
that 45,000 will be released by the end of April?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes, that is so. These men, one must admit, are quite free to choose their occupation. They do not need to come back into the agricultural industry, and although we have tried to find out what percentage are going back, it is extremely difficult to do so. We cannot get exact figures on this matter, but our information is that a good proportion are going back to agriculture. As regards releases under Class B, individual specialist releases will continue: and with regard to the block release of 18,000, the number of releases by the middle of February was 5,000. That means that 5,000 have definitely gone back into the industry. An extension of the arrangements of Class B block release is now under consideration, and it is hoped that a further statement will be made shortly about this. The combined effect of these releases should be that by the beginning of the summer there will really be no large number of agricultural workers in the Services. We hope that by the middle of the summer the proportion of agricultural workers in the Services will be relatively small in comparison with other categories.
EARL DE LA WARR: Does that mean that the noble Earl is hoping that a very large proportion of the 45,000 left in the Services will be out by the middle of the summer?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes, we hope so. But, obviously, I cannot give exact figures on that. We definitely hope to have 45,000 out by the end of April, and we hope that a large proportion of the remainder will soon be out, which will leave relatively few agricultural workers in the Forces. I do not know if I have made that clear. I hope so.
As regards prisoners of war—and this is a very important side of the labour problem—we definitely hope to get as many Germans as there are Italians who have to be repatriated. Most of these are coming from North America, and every effort is being made to get them over as soon as possible. The length of time for which prisoners can be employed is not indefinite, but they will be a temporary stop-gap. Now we come to the Women's Land Army. We are all, on all

1137
sides of the House, in agreement, I am sure, that the Women's Land Army have done magnificent work. To whatever Party we belong, I am sure that we all desire to pay tribute to them. We earnestly hope that as many members of this Army as possible will stay on, and we are now planning a recruiting campaign which it is hoped to launch in April. We are working out the best ways of encouraging more women to join and serve in the Land Army at least during the emergency period. We hope that they will stay on for at least two years.
LORD HARLECH: It will depend on what coupons you can get for them for clothing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That may be. I will certainly direct the attention of my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade, to that. In view of the food shortage, we are going to call on volunteers again to help with the harvest. We hope in view of the really tremendous crisis to get some help in that way. The Minister of Education, too, has agreed that assistance of elementary school children can again be given this year. Their help was extremely valuable, especially in the potato harvest, and we hope that in view of our need they will respond again, and that we shall be able to make full use of them. It is true, of course, that we cannot depend to the same extent as we used to on help from men from the Services, because they will be fewer in numbers. That is on the debit side one might say. But I do hope that I have helped to convince your Lordships that we are doing what we can about this extremely difficult problem of labour. We do realize its extreme importance and as much as it can be done we will try to get labour for the agricultural industry.
For a moment we pass to the next thing in the Resolution, which is the question of buildings and housing. That, I think, next to labour and coupled with it, is one of the most serious situations that we face. In fact the Government take this point of view, in regard to the provision of houses for the agricultural population in rural areas; it is a matter of importance which cannot be over-emphasized. It is the crux of the whole situation to-day, and in fact if we do not get houses we shall not get workers; that is the matter in a nutshell. We have—and I think noble Lords here may probably part com-
1138
pany somewhat with me—we have given priority to the rural district councils. I should like to emphasize that we do not want finally to stop or forbid private building of houses, but there is a great shortage both of materials and labour, and it is a fact that actually more houses will be constructed by giving every facility and encouragement to the local authorities at this stage than would be the case if they were restricted.
I would like to say, and this is very gratifying, that recent results that have come in to us encourage that course of action. I should like to quote a few figures as to the position on January 31., On January 31, the rural district councils' housing programme stood as follows: possession obtained on land was for 62,924 houses; schemes authorized to proceed to tender for was for 18,029 houses; tenders were approved for 7,109 houses; and construction was begun on 2,427 houses. Now your Lordships may say that is a small thing in relation to the total houses needed. That of course is obviously true, but it does show that a start has at last been made, and not only that, but the rural districts have actually got under way quicker than the urban districts. In fact we get the following figures—compared with urban districts and boroughs, the tenders approved for rural districts were 55.8 per cent., as against 41.5 per cent, for urban districts and boroughs. I think it is very gratifying that the rural councils are playing up and have got off the mark quicker than the other boroughs. Your Lordships have also seen that the Government have given what is very generous and, in fact—
LORD CORNWALLIS: I just asked whether those really are for agricultural workers. That is what I am frightened of, that the district council roadman will go into those cottages.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should particularly like to emphasize this fact that these cottages which are being built would not qualify for a rural subsidy unless they were cottages for agricultural workers. If by any chance the cottages were let to other people not employed in agriculture, the subsidy would automatically stop.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It would automatically be smaller.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It would automatically stop. One of the conditions for getting the subsidy every year is that the cottages are let to agricultural workers.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him? Is the noble Lord quite certain that a roadman would not be classed as an agricultural worker?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is a question of which I shall want notice.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is a real danger and I request the noble Earl to make a note of that.
LORD CORNWALLIS: Do not think we want roads or anything of that kind. It is labourers and land.
EARL DE LA WARR: There are subsidies for urban houses, too, and I take it that if cottages built in the villages went to semi-urban workers, they would get the normal subsidy?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There is a different subsidy for a rural house than for a town house. The rural subsidy would not be payable unless it was let to a rural worker. To continue on the subject of subsidies it is expected that with these subsidies the cottages will be let at their net rent of 7s. 6d. There is one other little item which I think your Lordships may appreciate, that is in connexion with the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts which were dropped some time ago. The Minister of Health has now asked the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee "to advise generally on the reconditioning of rural cottages, with special reference to the supply of labour available without diversion from new buildings, and to consider what improvements could be made in the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts." This is now being considered, which, I think, will be gratifying to many members of this House. Not only are we concerned and very much concerned with the question of the maximum number of houses, but we are also concerned that these houses should be built according to need; that is a very important point. It is important that they should be put in the right places to satisfy the right demand. For this purpose, arrangements have recently been made to ensure that
1140
there will be a special close contact between the rural district councils and the war agricultural executive committees. They are going to work together, because the war agricultural committees know far more about the housing situation in regard to agriculture, so that they can inform each other and see that the houses are put in the right places.
In many cases in which land has been reclaimed during the war, or the production from it has been obviously increased, the councils may not be aware of it in the same way as the committees. We do hope that this will help in this particular respect. Members will probably be aware of the recent publication of the Report of the Farm Buildings Committee which was appointed by the Minister's predecessor, and the Report of a Mission on Farm Buildings which returned from the United States in the latter part of 1945. There is, of course, considerable need for work in the countryside, not only in connexion with the putting up of new buildings but for the repair and maintenance of existing farm buildings, and various adaptations which must be carried out. If we are going to carry on efficiently, unfortunately labour cannot be concentrated on this and taken away from housing, which is the most important and the number one priority. The Agricultural Improvement Council has now under consideration the report of this Farm Buildings Committee, and is going to recommend a programme of investigation on what can actually be carried out and how soon it can be carried out.
A NOBLE LORD: May I interrupt the noble Earl to ask: if one has some cottages that want repairing, can one use the wood one has on one's own property to repair them?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Not without a licence. I will refer that question to the Department concerned. In the meantime, I should like to say that my Department is developing its policy which is designed to secure the most effective use of the labour and materials available from the point of view of food production. I am sorry to notice that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is not in the House because I particularly wanted to congratulate him on becoming President of the Royal Agricultural Society of England and to say that we took notice of his speech in the food debate when he

1141
said that the farmers and the farming community would co-operate as far as the weather allowed. Obviously we cannot control the weather but we are doing the best we can about labour supply and houses.
I want for one moment to go back to the last and important point, the food situation, which has cropped up during this debate here, there and elsewhere. The Government has been very severely criticized for not warning farmers in good time of the food supply situation, particularly the question of wheat supplies. I want to recall quite briefly some of the circumstances leading up to the present reduction in supplies of home-produced wheat. Noble Lords will realize and know only too well that during the war the production of cereals, particularly of wheat, in this country had to be pushed up to a very high level indeed. This could not be done, as noble Lords also know only too well, without exhausting the fertility of the soil. We did this during the war at a very great sacrifice and during the time of the Coalition Government, in 1945, that Government decided that the time had arrived when we ought to give some thought to long-term farming needs and to return to a system of mixed rotational farming.
The late Minister of Agriculture was pressed in another place very often to give a long-term policy on farming and he always refused to do so; and I do not think that this Government, which only got into the saddle in August, can be blamed for not having a long-term policy which had to be worked out over the course of months. However, this Coalition Government did decide that something ought to be done about the position and actually they were responsible for reducing the acreage payment on wheat which formed part of the price, from £4 to £2 an acre. I should also like to remind noble Lords that at the meeting of Allied Ministers on Food and Agriculture held in London last June, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who was at that time Minister of Food, reported his discussions in Washington and said as regards the exportable wheat surplus that:
"The problem of wheat is one of movement rather than supply, adequate quantities are available in North and South America to meet the needs of the liberated countries for human consumption."
1142
That was the opinion which the Government apparently had at that time. This was last June. It was in these circumstances that the late Government decided that directions should not be served for the growing of wheat at home, the 1945 harvest, and that the acreage payment should be reduced.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Does the noble Lord say that it was the 1944 harvest?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No, it was 1945. Since that time, however, other reviews have taken place with results which you all know. At this point I should like to emphasize that at no time since the present Government came into office have the farmers been led to believe that they could sit back and relax and not produce as much food as possible. That has never been done; in fact, far from it. We have always stressed the need to maintain a high level of production during this difficult period of transition, although we were expecting that there might be a little less wheat and more live-stock products In fact, in September last, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, speaking at Manchester, said:
"It is because peace has made our food prospects rather worse, that I say that at this time we are not going to forget so easily the lesson which the war has taught us. We must plan our food supplies and look to our home agriculture to take its right and proper place in the economic life of the nation."
Again, in October when speaking to allotment holders in the London County Council area, he said:
"The time for relaxation is not yet. We are having to ask the farming community to carry on with its prodigious efforts. I would ask every domestic food producer to do the same."
Then on November 15, when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House made his statement on the Government's, agricultural policy, he said:
"The world food shortage is extremely serious. For the time being, therefore, compulsory directions to grow sugar beet and potatoes must be served, and supervision exercised where necessary over the laying down of grass, so that this process keeps in step with the anticipated increase in live stock, with the requirements of home-grown feeding stuffs and with the continued need for a large tillage acreage."
Similar warnings were given on November 22 in a broadcast by the Minister of Agriculture; and, when speaking to the

1143
Council of Agriculture for England on December 5 last with reference to wheat, he said:
"As you know, directions are not being issued this year to compel farmers to grow wheat, but that does not mean that we are no longer interested in wheat.. On the contrary, we want a lot of it. We have taken as our target an acreage figure somewhat greater than last year, when sowings were reduced by inclement weather, but unless a great deal of wheat is sown this coming spring, I am afraid we shall fall a long way short of our target."
I think that what I have said is sufficient to show that the Government were aware of the seriousness of the position last autumn and that steps were taken to see that our farmers were under no misapprehension about the state of things and the need for their continued help. However, since that time it is only true to say that the position has deteriorated in the world beyond all measure. There is now, not only a national calamity but a world - wide disaster. I wish I could agree with Lord Quibell in his very able speech on which I congratulate him. If there are hidden reserves they will be only too useful to us. What is more, we are taking steps to find out whether in the Nazi-occupied zone in Germany there are stores hidden anywhere, so that they can be brought to light and used, but I am afraid there is no doubt about the general shortage. The final straw has been the failure of the rains in India, threatening the whole continent with famine.
LORD CORNWALLIS: May I interrupt to ask a question? Does anybody know what is supposed to have happened to that exportable surplus which was apparently in the world last June? Has someone eaten it?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I must have notice of that question. I do not really know, but I presume that a miscalculation must have been made, for it is impossible to calculate exactly to a ton what a harvest will be. We are so dependent on the weather and when you get added to that an absolute series of world - wide calamities, the position gets worse and worse and worse. However I will take notice of the noble Lord's question. To proceed, I do not want to keep your Lordships much longer, but I would like to say that we do realize that everything that can possibly be done to meet this crisis must be done, and that we must
1144
distribute what grain there is to the best possible advantage. I would like to submit that the Government is doing everything it can, but we badly need the help and the co - operation of the farming community. I do feel confident myself that when they do realize the position which the world is facing, they will respond as they always have done, and do the best they can.
7.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I hope the House will excuse me if I speak just for a couple of moments on one point with regard to which I think the Government has not sufficiently blown its own trumpet, and also to put right a misapprehension under which I believe the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is suffering, with regard to rural houses. He stated that the subsidy under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts had been cancelled, and that the Government had put nothing in its place to replace it. On the contrary, I believe that the Government has replaced it, and in a most magnificent fashion. I do not know if the noble Earl has noticed (in fact, it would seem he has not noticed) the provisions in recent Finance Acts. Under those any landowner can claim back out of his Income Tax 10 per cent. of the cost —
EARL DE LA WARR: Sir John Anderson dealt with that before this Government came into power.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: You heard of it?
EARL DE LA WARR: Certainly; it is nothing to do with this Government. It is true that Mr. Hugh Dalton was to some extent responsible for actually setting it in motion, but I really must put the noble Lord right; it was not this Government.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: That, in fact, surely recompenses the landowner 100 per cent. He gets it 'back off his Income Tax. He gets it back at 10 per cent. per annum, and in fact in ten years he gets the whole thing back. He gets 10 per cent. of the cost of his rural cottages back every year; so I am informed by a firm of auditors in the City of London. I am sure they are right.
LORD HARLECH: I do not think anybody complains that there are no helps in this way, but the difficulty, whether

1145
you are a rural district council, or a private farmer or landowner, is to get the material, because the priority for all the labour and all the materials is for the cities and the towns. It is no use publishing beautiful figures for a rural district council's scheme when you will not allow them to have a brick or a gutter or a rainpipe.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we are all very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, for his reply. He certainly tried very hard to answer most of the points. The fact that there were a number of points on which I am not altogether satisfied would not, I think, justify me in trying to repeat arguments. We had his admission at the end that really the whole trouble was a matter of miscalculation.
There is just one point on which I do feel extremely strongly, and rather resent. During my speech I tried to make it clear to your Lordships that I felt extremely strongly on this subject, and I was going to speak frankly. But really this Socialist Government must not get into a state of mind where anybody who feels strongly about a matter and criticizes them must of necessity be accused of partizanship. I resent what the noble Earl said, and indeed, I find it quite ludicrous. I cannot see the purpose of debating in this Chamber or in another place unless we are actually allowed to criticize the Government. I happen to feel that our rations in this country are going to be reduced to a greater extent than they need be because the farmers were not warned in October, and I feel entitled to say that. As a devoted friend of agriculture, I do most deeply resent being accused of introducing a Party spirit into the discussion.
Referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, which we all enjoyed, really I think the noble Lord must make up his mind for just how long the last Government is always to be considered responsible for everything. Actually, of course, the £2 reduction in the grant for wheat was made by the last Minister, but it could have been perfectly well put back by October. According to the Minister of Food in another place, Mr. Bevin was making a speech on the shortage of food in October. Then it must have been the case that the Government were aware of the position. They could perfectly well have replaced that £2. Lord Quibell com-
1146
plains of the price of barley compared with the price of wheat. He is quite right. I have always thought the price of barley was too high, and I think it was a mistake the last Government made, but that is no excuse for this Government not—
LORD QUIBELL: Putting it right.
EARL DE LA WARR: Putting it right. One last point. I really do think that the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, and other noble Lords who sit on those Benches, might sometimes remind themselves that they were extremely well represented in the last Government and the last Government was not a wicked reactionary Government.
LORD QUIBELL: I do not overlook that.
EARL DE LA WARR: The present Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Torn Williams, was sitting in the Ministry of Agriculture when all those terrible mistakes which the noble Lord has mentioned were made.
LORD QUIBELL: I have not over looked that.
EARL DE LA WARR: Having dealt with those points, I would just like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, for his reply, and I am most grateful to him for saying that he will accept the Resolution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Great Western Railway;
also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Mortlake Crematorium Board);
and also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Bromborough Dock. [H.L.]
Rushden District Gas. [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
RUSHDEN DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Committed, the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on the 6th of February last discharged and the Bill committed.
RUSHDEN DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Rotherham Corporation Bill [H.L.] and another Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Rushden District Gas Bill [H.L.]; Read, and agreed to.

BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Mid and South East
1148
Cheshire Water Board Bill [H.L.] do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Bromborough Dock Bill [H.L.]; Read, and agreed to.

TYNE TUNNEL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill:

E. Poulett,

L. Teynham (Chairman),

L. Carrington,

L. De L'Isle and Dudley,

L. Amulree.

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of six members to join with the Committee appointed by this House to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.